Date: Dec 7, 2012 8:26 AM Author: mahipal7638@gmail.com Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before On Dec 7, 5:36 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

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

> "Mahipal" wrote in message

>

> news:f091c743-d691-471f-a34e-1dbffe39f6cb@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>

> 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.

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

> 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 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.

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/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.

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

> 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 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

Enjo(y)...

--

Mahipal

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