Your feedback is not required, you've already shown your prejudice by referring to the conniving huckster and snake oil salesman with the title "Professor", which he never was. Suffe(r).
> Your feedback is not required, you've already shown your prejudice > by referring to the conniving huckster and snake oil salesman with the > title "Professor", which he never was. > Suffe(r).
Albert Einstein held the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton.
> Your feedback is not required, you've already shown your prejudice > by referring to the conniving huckster and snake oil salesman with the > title "Professor", which he never was. > Suffe(r).
Albert Einstein held the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton.
Professor of theoretical fuckwittery is not a title to be proud of. You seem reluctant to address the mathematical capabilities of your pathetic dork hero. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WEAM.htm
>>> Your feedback, objective or otherwise, is welcomed.
It seems simpler to me to see e~m, ie to consider e and m as values (expressed in different units) of a same entity "energy-mass". My personal view is that the energy content of lightclocks (either as gauging tools or as composing entities for matter) contributes to the mass content of a matter particle. I view lightclocks as the mechanism of transforming light speed particles into infraluminal mass particles. In this my view, even "rest mass" would consist of lightclock energy. I'd agree this can't be the whole story but I think it conributes to it. See my SR pages http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm#MySRT. http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
>> Your feedback is not required, you've already shown your prejudice >> by referring to the conniving huckster and snake oil salesman with >> the title "Professor", which he never was. >> Suffe(r).
> Albert Einstein held the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics > at Princeton. > Your bias clouds your judgement. > Your suffe(r)able imitation, however insincere, is minimally > flattering.
I don't know if you know about him (not meaning AE of course:-), but the best thing you can do is to ignore him (and some others) and to confine your converse with people seeking genuine understanding. I know by experience it's tempting at times not to, but in the long run you feel happier and more satisfied this way
You *assume* that an equation isn't true. Then you use the non-truth of that equation to prove things that follow from a completely different equation.
This is not even wrong.
For example, since e, m, and c are all constants in the context of the equation e=mc^2, then all the differentials you write, de, dm, and dc, are all zero. Thus both of the following are true.
m de - e dm = 0
m de + e dm = 0
Seriously dude, you could condier learning something before you start waving your fingers around on your keyboard.
Heh.
When I was in first year grad school, one of the other grad students was just finishing his PhD. And his wife was helping him by proof-reading the manuscript. But, since she was a law student, some of the technical terms were troublesome. She red-penned a paragraph that he had to very patiently explain to her was actually perfectly fine English.
And the next day, all the grad students on the floor were walking around muttering "I is the action but me is the mass." Socks
f you know about him (not meaning AE of course:-), but
> the > best thing you can do is to ignore him (and some others) and to > confine your > converse with people seeking genuine understanding. I know by > experience > it's tempting at times not to, but in the long run you feel happier > and more > satisfied this way
I claim the meforce page as Poetic, not exactly poetry. The thought is poetic.
> You *assume* that an equation isn't true. Then you > use the non-truth of that equation to prove things > that follow from a completely different equation.
> This is not even wrong.
It's logical reasoning. It's imagining. It's a written concrete literary construct.
Besides, fumbling with math equations is freely allowed within the constraints imposed by the Laws of Physics on human hands and writing tools.
> For example, since e, m, and c are all constants > in the context of the equation e=mc^2, then all the > differentials you write, de, dm, and dc, are all zero. > Thus both of the following are true.
> m de - e dm = 0
> m de + e dm = 0
No. The equation e=mcc is a linear equation with a constant slope; your understanding of simple math is wrong. Both those equations are not simultaneously true; other than in the trivial case you allude to.
> Seriously dude, you could condier learning something > before you start waving your fingers around on your keyboard.
> Heh.
Did I not post to a disscussion group to share, to learn, and to teach? Duh.
> When I was in first year grad school, one of the other grad > students was just finishing his PhD. And his wife was helping > him by proof-reading the manuscript. But, since she was a > law student, some of the technical terms were troublesome. > She red-penned a paragraph that he had to very patiently > explain to her was actually perfectly fine English.
> And the next day, all the grad students on the floor were > walking around muttering "I is the action but me is the mass." > Socks
You can get a bunch of students, their teachers even, to mutter many a chant. Try reading a psych disscussion group or book, paperback or not, for details.
Enjo(y). -- Mahipal ``We search our Earth and her limitless skies all the while discovering in our hearts and minds is where heaven lies''
> > Your feedback is not required, you've already shown your prejudice > > by referring to the conniving huckster and snake oil salesman with the > > title "Professor", which he never was. > > Suffe(r).
> Albert Einstein held the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics > at Princeton.
> Your suffe(r)able imitation, however insincere, is minimally > flattering.
> Enjo(y). > -- > Mahipal > ``We search our Earth > and her limitless skies > all the while discovering > in our hearts and minds > is where heaven lies''
> Professor of theoretical fuckwittery is not a title to be proud of. > You seem reluctant to address the mathematical capabilities > of your pathetic dork hero. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WEAM.htm- Hide quoted text -
Einstein was into Physics, where Math is inherently unavoidable. Albert was quite capable as a Mathematician, whether my hero or not.
Einstein was no more a Mathematician than he was a Violinist.
Regardless of my opinion, Albert changed our understanding of the Universe.
Enjo(y) -- Mahipal In Nature, birds fly without demonstrating an iota of academic knowledge of either Physics or Maths. http://mysite.verizon.net/mahipalvirdy/
> I claim the meforce page as Poetic, not exactly poetry. The thought is > poetic.
See? I didn't expect feedback to be welcomed.
> > You *assume* that an equation isn't true. Then you > > use the non-truth of that equation to prove things > > that follow from a completely different equation.
> > This is not even wrong.
> It's logical reasoning. It's imagining. It's a written concrete > literary construct.
It's not even reasononing, never mind logical.
Maybe if I restate it for you. Here's what you did.
A is true. Assume A is not true. Therefore B (which is pulled out of the air and is not true in the context) implies C.
It is not reasononing at all. It is bad poetry.
> Besides, fumbling with math equations is freely allowed within the > constraints imposed by the Laws of Physics on human hands and writing > tools.
Fumbling with equations seems to be your limit.
You seriously need some remedial instruction. I don't have the time it would take, which would be some months at least. You need to go back to some place around about age 15. Maybe earlier. Socks
