Do I understand this correctly?

On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote:

...

Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for
common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about
relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
mean by objective physics", as detailed in
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy
Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100
years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's
crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..

No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps
forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would
it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps
forward at all?

New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or
not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things
represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially
right holds anything back.

Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side
in SR?

On Nov 30, 11:47*am, Edward Green wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote:

...



Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for
common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about
relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
mean by objective physics", as detailed in
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy
Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100
years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's
crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..

No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps
forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would
it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps
forward at all?

New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or
not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things
represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially
right holds anything back.

Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side
in SR?

I think "relativistic mass" can be considered a move to the side at
best. It was done to bridge classical physics with the more correct
relativistic treatment, in the manner of "this can be thought of
playing the role of what you knew before...."

On Nov 30, 12:47*pm, Edward Green wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote:

...

Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for
common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about
relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
mean by objective physics", as detailed in
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy
Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100
years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's
crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..

No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps
forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would
it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps
forward at all?

New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or
not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things
represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially
right holds anything back.

Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side
in SR?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Edward: The "backwards step" in SR is that such violates the Law
of the Conservation of Energy. Also, the space-time CRAP of SR
resulted from Lorentz's rubber-ruler explanation for the nil results
of Michelson-Morley. The real reason for the nil results (my own
contribution) is because M-M didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging,
light course. Read some of my many '+new posts' to understand more.
— NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...51e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/...797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...93f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c92e2427fd7e98

On Dec 6, 10:09Â*am, "Androcles"
wrote:

r_AB/(c+v) Â*= r_AB/(c-v). Â*References given:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are
stationary wrt one another, when v = zero. Einstein clearly wrote (in
YOUR OWN stated reference paper);

"It is essential to have time de�ned by means of stationary clocks in
the
stationary system, and the time now de�ned being appropriate to the
stationary
system we call it “the time of the stationary system.� ".

This has been pointed out to you already, so why do you still attempt
to mislead people by only telling half the story.

On Dec 6, 3:58Â*pm, palsing wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:09Â*am, "Androcles"
wrote:

r_AB/(c+v) Â*= r_AB/(c-v). Â*References given:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are
stationary wrt one another, when v = zero. Einstein clearly wrote (in
YOUR OWN stated reference paper);

"It is essential to have time de�ned by means of stationary clocks in
the
stationary system, and the time now de�ned being appropriate to the
stationary
system we call it “the time of the stationary system.� ".

This has been pointed out to you already, so why do you still attempt
to mislead people by only telling half the story.

Because that's his objective -- to mislead, to heckle, to make useless
noise.
It is very much like someone who hates jazz and prefers classical
music, and who goes to open jazz concerts and then tries to disrupt
the shows to the point where other people no longer find the concert
enjoyable and leave.
He takes pride in this behavior. That, or he has no pride left
whatsoever.

On Dec 6, 2:58*pm, "Androcles" wrote:

tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), *but v = 0 according to palsing.

tau = t * sqrt(1-0^2/c^2)
tau = t * sqrt(1-0)
tau = t * sqrt(1)
tau = t * 1
tau = t, big ****ing deal, you deranged cretin!

quote/
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

That is NOT the formula to which I referred, and you know it.

However, when you set v = 0 in this formula, the result is trivial, as
you have shown, but that does not make it incorrect, it only shows
that there is no translation when v = 0, as expected.

\Paul A

4m wide, not long

On Dec 6, 10:05*am, PD wrote:
No, you don't understand. If you use mv as the momentum, where m is
the rest value, then you expect a certain value of ejection momentum
by knowing the radius of the cyclotron magnets. I leave it to you to
look this relationship up, because it is perfectly reasonable to ask
you to do *some* of the searching yourself. But when the cyclotrons
were actually built, they found that the ejected momentum was not what
they thought it would be. The difference can be attributed to the
relativistic mass, which you will see as soon as you look that
relationship up.

Can relativistic mass be metet in linear accelerators?

On Dec 42, 37:47*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line < >

Break Line Porat" wrote:
you wrote a lot Break Line
but still * didnt answer simply Break Line
a single question of my above simple questions Break Line

a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !