Date: Dec 7, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before
On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> "Mahipal" wrote in message
> On Dec 6, 10:37 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> <LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:
> > "Mahipal" wrote in message
> > > 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.
> 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 back-arsewards 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 non-existent.
> 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 non-existent. No wonder you booze!
I address your physics ability in addition to our making small talk.
> > > 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 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
> 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > > ====================================================
> > > 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.
> 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