Date: Dec 7, 2012 12:35 AM Author: mahipal7638@gmail.com Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

<LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:

> "Mahipal" wrote in message

>

> news:6684cea4-8fb0-4ea6-92fe-498cdf3b0ebb@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.

There have been rainbows before and without mathematics. If physics

were axiomatic like mathematics insists on being, then there would be

no need for experiments.

> > "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.

> > 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.

> > "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!

> > 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/word-of-the-year-_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.

> > 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?

[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.

> 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.

> > 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.

>

> ========================================

> 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.

> > > 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 be-lie-ve false rumours and spread them.

Study the implications and conclusions from Millikan's complete

detailed work before continuing typing at your keyboard.

[trim]

> 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.

> ===================================================

> You know sweet fuck-all about me, Bard Virdy-gurdy.

The more you use your keyboard, the more you reveal about yourself.

Enjo(y)...

--

Mahipal

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/