
Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before
Posted:
Dec 7, 2012 8:26 AM


On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote: > "Mahipal" wrote in message > > news:f091c743d691471fa34e1dbffe39f6cb@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" > > <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote: > > "Mahipal" wrote in message > > >news:6684cea48fb04ea692fe498cdf3b0ebb@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > > [trim] > > > Einstein posited E = mc^2... > > > > ========================================================== > > > I am nitpicking, as pedantic as any mathematician can be. Your choice > > > was > > > postulate. > > > 1. To make claim for; demand. 2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, > > > or > > > necessity of... etc. > > > Don't nitpick, feel free to suggest a rewriting for the first few > > opening words in my deriving  drunken or otherwise  said > > derivation of 'me always changes.' > > > DUI == Deriving Under the Influence (He he). > > > > That which you believe and I also believe, WITHOUT PROOF, is an axiom. > > > If you can prove that which you believe from a more primitive axiom then > > > that which you believe is not an axiom, it is a theorem. > > > > Newton's first law is an axiom. > > > Einstein's first "postulate is an axiom. > > > Indeed, it is so primitive he was unable to describe it and could only > > > give an example. > > > Per a old previous line of mine, which you took significant and > > measurable umbrage with, IMO there are no axioms in real Physics. If > > physics were axiomatic, our discussions here would be as dull and > > stale as in some math forum. Shhh... be very very secretive. > > > ============================================================= > > Syllogism and contrapositive. > > If not C then not B, if not B then not A. > > No physics without mathematics, no mathematics without axioms. > > Mathematicians are clever enough to invent new axioms as needed. > ============================================================== > Bullshit. > Poets are stupid enough to invent new axioms as needed.
There really are no poems posted to these here two newsgroups.
> There have been rainbows before and without mathematics. > ========================================================== > Rainbows are an observation. Black holes are not. > Investigating the rainbow we arrive at an explanation which requires > mathematics. Observation, investigation, explanation. > Explaining the black hole we investigate the mathematics and > then go looking for one. That's backarsewards insanity.
No predicted black holes have been observed?
> If physics > were axiomatic like mathematics insists on being, then there would be > no need for experiments. > =========================================================== > Ok. I'll get out the lawn sprinkler and simulate rain on a sunny day to > investigate rainbows, you go ahead and experiment on a black hole, > see if I care  as long as you don't want my tax money to pay you for it.
I pay taxes too.
> > > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and > > > a > > > conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the RELATIVE > > > MOTION of the conductor and the magnet," > > > > He has not defined "relative motion", you are supposed to know what it > > > means without proof. That's what makes it an axiom. > > > Let go the axiom John. That one does not take the time to define > > "relative motion" clearly indicates a predisposition to be vague. > > =================================================== > > > Let go the booze, Bard Virdy. Mathematics is all about proof and > > the language of physics is mathematics. All crackpot theories are > > founded on castles in the air. Real physics are built on axioms. > > It's impossible to define colour objectively yet we know what it is > > subjectively. If you think otherwise then tell a blind person. > > It's not easy to define relative motion. Try it and we'll see who is > > vague. > > You are beyond inadequate as a mathematician. Whether I booze or not. > > =============================================== > Your attempt to define relative motion is so vague it is nonexistent. > Must try harder. I'm keeping the axiom. Let go the booze.
When and where did I offer to define this, as you say, relative motion? When is it suddenly my obligation to attempt this feat at all in any place?
> > > That which you believe and I DO NOT believe but will allow temporarily > > > as > > > an > > > hypothesis, is a postulate. > > > Einstein's second postulate is a postulate to him and an hypothesis to > > > me. > > > Moreover, it is a compound statement and hence not primitive: > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > > which > > > is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > "Empty space" is a frame of reference against which the light has > > > RELATIVE > > > velocity c. > > > There exist known experiments where the light speed has been slowed > > down to slug speed rates. Where's experimental Einstein now? I once > > heard that Ein Stein translates and means One Way. Was I mislead? > > ======================================================== > > Yes, you were misled. German stein translates to English stone. > > The real point is we can examine what Einstein postulated leads to and > > conclude > > the postulate is false on strictly logical grounds, without the need for > > experiment. > > Your hatred blinds you. > ================================ > My emotions are not the subject under discussion, but since you want > to discuss me rather than physics I'll discuss you. Your attention span > and crass stupidity fucks you up, you imbecile.
Let it all out John. Your bottled anger is erupting. Your insults will at last resolve physics.
> > > "These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and > > > consistent > > > theory..." > > > THIS IS A LIE! > > > His "theory" is not consistent and relies on his THIRD postulate that > > > the > > > cheeky lying bastard calls a definition. > > > Do elaborate Lord John. Never hold back, say what you need to, rather > > than us playing some cat and mouse game. How come there's no mouse in > > the box in Schrödinger's cat experiment? An isolated cat in a box will > > die within a week without mice and water. > > ================================================ > > Okay, I won't hold back. > > Schrödinger's cat is not the subject currently under discussion > > so don't change the topic, you drunken idiot. > > Your ablity to remember cats in this discussion is nil. In fact, your > overall memory is severely suspect. No wonder I booze! > ================================================== > Your ab[i]lity to remember physics in this discussion is nil. In fact, your > overall attention span is nonexistent. No wonder you booze!
I address your physics ability in addition to our making small talk. Sorry?
> > > 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. > > > > Now you, as a poet, will cheerfully allow words to have different > > > meanings, but I, as a mathematician, do not allow it. > > > As an aspiring taunted poet I, I am very severely constrained and > > infinitely more literarily bound by the meaning of the vast malarkey > > of words than any physicist. Though I do completely relish enjoying > > mocking the self appointed meme words keepers. See them as themselves > > here, and I unsurprisingly didn't yet have to write a single mocking > > word myself... go figure... > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/wordoftheyear_n_2245123.... > > > same ashttp://tinyurl.com/b8unrdd > > > ===================================================== > > Your mockery is more suited to chachahanson's appreciation than mine. > > I mock theoretical physicists, fools that attempt to change the > > mathematics > > they do not understand. When building a house it is unwise to put the roof > > on first. Postulating the walls will prop it up without foundation first > > is > > doomed to failure. > > Drink some good wine John. You seriously need it. Theoretical > physicists are master mathematicians, by default, with or without > booze. > ====================================================== > That's your hypothesis. Now experiment to explain it.
It's not a hypothesis, it's a simple matter of fact statement reflecting observations of the math skills of physicists  theoretical or otherwise.
> > > Time does not mean "time", time in the stationary system differs from > > > "time" > > > in the moving system, according to Einstein. > > > Now get out your thesaurus and look up "LIE". > > > You are BEARING FALSE WITNESS, Einstein did NOT postulate E = mc^2. > > > I cannot help bearing false witness to this notion. Twist my arms with > > the force of all your might. I've been conditioned and brain washed > > since age seven, given that was when I first went through USA ICE > > Customs, surprisingly without any international incident, in entry > > point New York. Then later my family traveled to DC by train. My > > sister Geeta==Gita was nine then. My friend, of my age, today at the > > first anniversary religious service of his father's passing, was also > > contemplating her life and, generally, Lives in Destiny. > > > ===================================================== > > Have you been checked for dementia? Your mind is wandering to > > your family and away from physics. > > We all have family, not just you with your Wendy. Get wine asap. I was > at a funeral today. Can you relate on any human level at all? > =================================================== > No I can't, so shove your poetry into your empty bottle and shove > that you know where.
I do not generally post my poetry to these here two newsgroups.
> [trim] > > > You simply change PE=mv^2 to mc^2 because why?! > > ========================================== > > v and c are merely symbols for velocity, there is nothing special about > > them. Why should I not? > > Because it's fundamentally and ridiculously wrong. That's why not. How > fast would the projectiles be traveling if the energy released in a > combustion reaction was mc^2? Do, if you can, the math. Assume c=1. > ================================================ > We all have math, not just you with your Gita. Get whisky asap. You were > at a funeral yesterday. Can you relate on any physics level at all?
Read just the 3 lines by me above and prove there's neither physics nor math in them.
> > Please compute the > > orders of magnitude error introduced when your potential chemical > > energy mystically goes from mv^2 to mc^2. Justify the minced math. > > ========================================================= > > The energy gained by the whizzing bullet and the recoiling gun > > is E. The energy lost by the burnt power is E. > > For the bullet and gun, E = mV^2 + Mv^2 where m is a small mass, M is a > > large mass, v is a small velocity, V is a large velocity. > > mV  Mv = 0, conservation of momentum. > > The mass lost by the burnt powder is given by mu = E/c^2, where mu is a > > minute amount far smaller than m or M. > > mu, m and M are three different masses, v, V and c are three different > > velocities. > > E = mu.c^2 > > In reality, some of this mass vanishes as a flash of light, sound, a loud > > bang, heating the gun barrel and ejecting the burnt gas (powder > > burns). > > You cannot just transform the v to c in your PE of chemical charge, as > you call it. Your total energy equation is wrong as I pointed out > before regards the 1/2 but still allowed you creative license to do > whatever by calling it unique. > =================================================== > Your family cannot travel to DC by train, it is fundamentally and > ridiculously wrong. DC is separated from India by water.
But there is a super special secret train, traveling at relativistic speeds, between DC and India. We try not to advertise it too well. It was funded by, you guessed it, your tax money.
> > > I kept dwelling on this and am comfortable with your total energy > > > equation. Each projectile can be m/2 or there can be just a single > > > projectile with mass m. Your derivation based upon total energy is > > > quite unique. So what's your take away conclusion? > > > > ================================================ > > > Energy is relative. You stand on the second floor and I drop a > > > hammer on your head from the third floor, work is done and > > > your skull is cracked. I drop a hammer on your head from the > > > first floor, no work is done on your skull, the hammer has negative > > > energy. You'll need to raise it to the third floor to give it some, > > > first replacing the negative energy by raising it to the second floor. > > > Squaring v in (1/2)m(v)^2 hides the negative energy. > > > Stop dropping hammers on me. I am a poet pla(y)ing tennis and I could > > readily dodge and or catch your hammers even with my eyes closed. Live > > long and proper Roger Federer. Win win WIN!
Live long and prosper Roger Federer. Must improve my spell checking. Oy.
> > Energy is an abstraction. Not my thought, but when I first encountered > > it here on Usenet, it simultaneously and instantaneously both shocked > > and woke me up. More shock, for I do never post while asleep. Weird > > that. If, ergo, energy is an abstraction, then now so is mass. Balance > > beam me damned. A kilo of kale please. We grow up, get educated, > > thinking MLT are primitive measurables as Mass Length Time but some > > Big Brothers don't want us to have and to hold such solid foundations > > to stand firmly grounded upon. The truth is what they make believe. I > > love that there is a lie in the middle of the word be_lie_ve. Just > > love it. My be_lie_f being entirely independent of space and time, any > > time and any space. > > > ======================================== > > I should have thought MLT to you was meat, lettuce and tomato. > > If thinking were your forte, then sure. I want booze with my MLT too. > ================================================ > Enjo(y) your meforte. > > > > > A handgun weighs a kilogram, the bullet weighs a gram. The bullet is > > > > propelled > > > > to 1000 metres/second. Conservation of momentum requires the gun to > > > > recoil > > > > at 1 metre/second (if not stopped by your hand). > > > > The energy of the bullet is 1/2 * 1 * 1000^2 = 500000. > > > > The energy of the gun is 1/2 * 1000 * 1^2 = 500. > > > > The energy of the charge was 500500. > > > > Carry a heavy gun. > > > Like TV character Macgyver, I do and will not carry any guns. > > ==================================================== > > Yet you choose to reside in the USA. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. > > My beautiful nurse I courted (unsuccessfully) in West Virginia visited > > the sick hillbillies in the backwoods, it was her job. For her own > > protection she went packing a 9mm. > > One cannot be both in USA and in Rome at the same time. I will be > going to practice at a shooting gallery soon, but I do not want for > any gun. > > [trim] > > > > ==================================================== > > > Quite so, but what IS mass? > > > Intuitively it is stuff, matter, flubber, but what is the stuff protons > > > and > > > neutrons are made of? Do electrons have mass? How do you "weigh" one, > > > with a beam balance against gravity? > > > Mass is an abstraction. In terms of Evolution, mass is what we > > eat. Mass of protons, neutrons, and electrons have been measured > > electromagentically and are well established, by Robert Millikan, > > using the mere classical physics. I yawn, therfore I am. > > ================================================= > > Millikan measured charge on oil drops, not mass. You lie, therefore > > you believe false rumours and spread them. > > Study the implications and conclusions from Millikan's complete > detailed work before continuing typing at your keyboard. > ===================================================== > Study the implications and conclusions from Jack Daniels' complete > detailed bottle before continuing slurping at your monitor.
Finally Jack, a task I enjoy completing.
>  This message is brought to you from the keyboard of > Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Enjo(y)...  Mahipal http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/

