Date: Dec 6, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before

On Dec 5, 1:55 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<> wrote:
> "Mahipal"  wrote in message
> On Dec 4, 8:33 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> <> wrote:

> > "Mahipal"  wrote in message
> >
> [trim, because there are too many distracting "> > > > > ... >"]

> > > > > Not sure how I got thinking supernova in this thread. Anyway, your
> > > > > proposition is clearly a basic speed of light plus or minus the
> > > > > source
> > > > > speed issue. Let's just focus on the principle from now on. You do
> > > > > realize if I pursued such thoughts in any Liberal Arts Academia,
> > > > > that
> > > > > I likely wouldn't get a passing enough grade to return for the next
> > > > > semester? Might even get me banned from some websites of late.
> > > > > ======================================================
> > > > > Do you care?

> > > > That's like... Is the cat in the box both dead and alive?
> > > > > If so just tell them Einstein said
> > > > > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
> > > > > measured
> > > > > in
> > > > > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that t = x'/(c-v) "
> > > > > <>
> > > > > Who am I (or you) to challenge the great Ayatollah Saint Einstein?

> > > > Ayatollah Relativist Saint Einstein (ARSE)?
> > > > =========================================
> > > > Appropriate acronym, but it's actually Ayatollah Rabbi Saint Einstein
> > > > to include Islam, Judaism and Xtianity into the religion of
> > > > Relativity.
> > > > He was after all of Jewish origin. One could give him more titles but
> > > > the world has far too many religions. With Cha-cha-hanson taking his
> > > > extreme umbrage against Jews I didn't want to appear as an
> > > > anti-Semite,
> > > > I'm no racist but merely anti-religion.

> > > In Usenet archives, there's a thought experiment named, not by me, The
> > > Law of the Conservation of Reason. Search for it. If I find it, I will
> > > post its link.

> > I found the hinted at links, took some work... but see
> >
> > same as
> > or, if you have more time and interest,
> >
> > same as
> > Mati Meron                             | "When you argue with a fool,
> >    |  chances are he is doing just the same"

> > He's long gone.
> > When you agree with a fool the GUARANTEE is he's doing EXACTLY the same.

> As catchy a phrase as Mati's sig line is, one is never a fool just by
> mere association.
> [trim]

> > > > I may be having less time to interact here on Usenet, I have to get my
> > > > life back on track. Going through a routine background check even as I
> > > > do not real time tweet. I do have an account, that's got to look
> > > > good...
> > > > ===========================================
> > > > Do what ya gotta do and good luck. I'll still be here.

> > > Thanks! I will read only, since writing takes time, which I won't
> > > have.

> > > > -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> > > > Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

> > > Can you elaborate, it seems incomplete, or I cannot readily see its
> > > association, on your comment on my meforce website:

> > > "Actually it was
> > > As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not
> > > give off any energy in the form of radiation, the energy withdrawn
> > > from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy
> > > of motion W of the electron. Bearing in mind that during the whole
> > > process of motion which we are considering, the first of the equations
> > > (A) applies, we therefore obtain

> > >"
> > > ================================================
> > > It is the forerunner of E = mc^2.

> > Ok thanks, but can you resubmit your comment with more details regards
> > "Actually it was" because some context is missing. It maybe obvious to
> > you, but I myself cannot alter the contents of your thoughts.

> Here I simply mean that wordpress allows only the contributor to edit
> his words. At least, I do not feel comfortable making any changes to
> others' submissions, even if possible. I might as well make up fake
> criticisms per my own fictional expectations in that case.

> > ===================================================
> > The missing context was E = mc^2 which you provided.
> > I was disagreeing with your claim that Einstein postulated E = mc^2,
> > but I can only point out the content of your thought was wrong.

> It's not _my_ claim, check your local News sites regards Einstein.
> Nothing wrong about my choice of word "postulated." Per the Thesaurus,
> I could alter it to one of:
> postulate
> verb
> a theory postulated by a respected scientist: put forward, suggest,
> advance, posit, hypothesize, propose; assume, presuppose, presume,
> take for granted.
> 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.

> "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.

> 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?

> "These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent
> theory..."
> 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.

> 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...

same as

> 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.

> > > W is work, which has the same units as energy and was typically used
> > > to mean the same thing. If you roll a ball uphill it gains the energy to
> > > fall
> > > back that is equivalent to the work you did rolling it uphill. Put a
> > > hammer
> > > on the shelf in the garage, it has enough energy to break your toe if
> > > the
> > > cat knocks it off. You did the work lifting it to the shelf. E = 1/2
> > > mv^2.

> > > W = mc^2 { 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1}
> > > Multiply that out,
> > > W = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - mc^2

> > > mc^2 is the rest mass multiplied c^2. The extra part,
> > > mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > is the word done in accelerating the electron to velocity v (according
> > > to
> > > Einstein).

> > Typo, work not word.
> > ===================
> > I stand corrected.

> > > So rather than POSTULATING E = mc^2 as you claimed, he did actually
> > > calculate it.

> > I have learned, thanks to Usenet interactions, alright mostly thanks
> > to hanson at first, that Einstein was not even the originator of the
> > infamous E = mc^2. Most college and beyond physics teachers tend to
> > treat this equation as a throwaway since it is so ridiculously
> > popular. Hearing of it is like nails on a blackboard. I myself have
> > long forgotten how I first got exposed to it. Must've been bombarded
> > at me in the third grade, I suspect. I can envision my teachers
> > dancing and hand waving away in front of my wtf are you doing eyes?!

> > Calculate does not seem to be a synonym for postulate, so I do not yet
> > feel compelled to change the word as I've used it. My 1987 work is
> > poetic first and foremost. Some people simply like, how the two
> > opening words are "Our friend" and relax smile at the suggestion. In
> > the later version (the pdf link) I dawn on a more mature tone.

> > For sure, bottom line, independent of its many Many MANY available
> > derivations, d(me) =/= 0 is a truism, and "me always changes" is a
> > mere neat available linguistic twist. Only works in English is one
> > strong complaint against the thought. Why me? Why not alpha*beta, for
> > instance? Not my problem. Maybe revisionistic historians can travel
> > back, there's a train at nine, in time and alter the symbology. I'll
> > wait.

> > > Actually it was there all the time once conservation of momentum is
> > > taken
> > > into account.
> > >

> > I have read your page before and find your basing it on Newtonian
> > mechanics to be interesting. But... since there are two projectiles in
> > your formulation, shouldn't the total energy be

> > Total energy = mc^2 +  mv^2
> > instead of
> > Total energy = mc^2 +  ½mv^2?
> > The derivation on page 1126 of Serway's PHYSICS, 3rd edition, year
> > 1990, is also based on the work-energy theorem.

> > ==============================================
> > The energy of one projectile is (1/2)mv^2.
> > That is the work done to accelerate the mass m to velocity v by the
> > chemical charge aka black powder/cordite.
> > The other projectile has the opposite momentum and the same energy,
> > and since 2 * (1/2)mv^2 = mv^2 the chemical charge must have had
> > energy mv^2.

You simply change PE=mv^2 to mc^2 because why?! 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.

> 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!

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.

> > 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.

> > When one is discussing nuclear energy the mass vanishes, m = E/c^2.
> > This is not the mass of the projectiles, it is the mass of the chemical
> > powder charge MINUS (the burnt powder residue including gasses).
> > The Sun is losing mass. The chemical charge also loses mass, but it
> > is very small. 500500/(300,000,000)^2 = way too small to measure.
> > This suggests that energy and mass are interchangeable, that mass
> > which is measured by compressing a spring in a gravitational field
> > is in some way pure energy.

> In every Internal Combustion Engine, a small unmeasurably amount of
> mass is also converted to energy. Every candle flame burning.
> ====================================================
> 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.

> > When one is discussing a hadron in a collider hitting another one
> > at velocity 2c, now things are different as far as the numbers go.
> > The flying hadron has Kinetic Energy  1/2 mv^2, but the "mass"
> > part of that has an equivalent energy mc^2 referred to as its
> > rest energy for a total of KE = 1/2 (RE/c^2) v^2 which after
> > collision isn't a hadron with mass anymore. Or so the theory goes
> > if you are looking for Hoggs' bison roaming the Scottish hills in
> > deep thought.

> Have you noticed how many modern particle physics articles are
> authored by more named individuals than there are total words in the
> article itself?
> =====================================================
> Of course. The sheep all want a piece of the meadow, one bleats and
> they all say "baa". When they go down a blind alley they call it progress
> and die because there is no going back. In the 60s it was going to take
> 50 years to reach controlled nuclear fusion and cheap energy for
> everybody. It's 2012 and still going to take 50 years.

It's about time you laughed your arse off John on this counted matter!

> One silly bitch interviewed on TV over the speed of neutrinos from
> CERN picked up in Italy said "If Einstein is wrong then my life's
> research is worthless", as if we would weep for her.

Bitches are the newest and latest face of physicists. It's politically
required -- correct or otherwise. It's so funny watching women,
especially black ones, not that I've seen even one yet, but it's only
Thursday now, state the obvious established astrocomical knowisms. So
cunning they. More yawn. I yawn again, therfore I still am.

> Where are this list of idiots with prestigious institutes behind them today?
> Perhaps they write poetry now.

You know you like love poetry Lord John. Stop feigning the
condescension. As a poet, I know what you are meaning and saying, not
just what you are writing. It's a gift. Thank you much Mother Nature.

> > > -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> > > Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

> > On the many roads to this singular famous E = mc^2 equation... see
> >
> > upon reading several of the links, one finds a very interesting article:
> >