"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
: On Jan 2, 1:46 am, malibu wrote:
: On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
:
:
:
: left.com wrote:
: " wrote
:
:
: On Jan 1, 9:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
: On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:
:
: What is repulsing protons and electrons?
:
: They behave as if they are the same charge.
:
: They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
: an atom and why it takes energy to free it.
:
: - Randy
:
: Maybe it's not attraction.
:
: Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
: as much as like charges repel each other.
:
: You have to solve the Schroedinger equation in the 1/r potential to
see
: the answer. It's because the electron's de Broglie wavelength is much
: much greater than the proton's de Broglie wavelength, so the two don't
: 'touch.' It's one of those things where the probabilistic nature of
QM
: makes our classical intuition unreliable, and applying the logic of
: 'billiard ball' particles gives the wrong answer. If you can't solve
: differential equations, you can't understand.
:
: That is so much hooey bull****.
:
: If you can't explain it to a 10 year-old, you
: don't know it.
:
: "I don't understand it, so it must not be true".
:
What is it you don't understand about Catch 22, Poe?
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/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 were
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 would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
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 = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
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,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
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 he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.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.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.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/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/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 true
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