Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: > Hi Harry, > >> Is y = xa^2 not an equation? >> Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2. > > Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and > have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the > equation of a

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: On 3/8/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: So how about you try working through the mathematics of the contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the results here? I mean, work them through us

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Steven, > The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion "both release energy". It is irrelevant since you are not computing the fusion for making the uranium and comparing it to the fission for turning it into s

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

> > In Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ there is a > derivation of E = mc^2 without any special relativity concepts. > see p. 283-286 of the 1962 edition. > > Harry BTW, this book also provides an excellent introduction to the science of motion known as mechanics. Great rea

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/8/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So how about you try working through the mathematics of the contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the results here? I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy to argue them with you, if

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier. > So, with extensive revisions, here it is. > > First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the > interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone > sort

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

This might sound like I'm simply parroting Mr. Lawrence's concerns but it is not. I sent my own message earlier but it got lost in the void. I felt strong enough to send my query again, and hopefully this time it will get through. >From Mr. Thompson > [irrelevant calculations of fission and fus

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: [irrelevant calculations of fission and fusion snipped] The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion "both release energy". They do not, if you're talking about the same nuclei being f

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Steven, > First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the interchangeability of mass and energy. Are you going to give me a history lesson, or are we going to discuss the physics? Einstein clearly supported the mass/energy equivalence principle and is widely credited wi

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier. So, with extensive revisions, here it is. First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone sort of reliable, IIRC) that there had been at

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, > I've heard people claim he did but I have never > seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually > asserted that there must be an aether. http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html > According

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, I don't know what your religion is. All I know is that when the discussion veers away from the math and data, it bases upon our faith in our own personal opinion. Such a discussion is indistinguishable from a religious discussion. If we stay with the science

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

nough? Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty David Thomson wrote: > Hi Stephen, > [ ... ] > > You called me a crank in two dif

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: The heart of the matter is this. Even is SR & GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence against a fluid aether (a sta

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Harry, > Is y = xa^2 not an equation? > Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2. Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are y

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

From: John Berry ... > And yet you [Mr. Lawrence] basically consider that anyone who believe > in it or questions SR/GR to be a crank. I consider anyone willing to > cast aside the best most logical and evidence supported theory (which > has no evidence against it unlike SR) without even giving i

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: > Hi Harry, > > If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted > to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should > create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. >> It depends on where they are on the periodic table. > >>> Another irra

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

The heart of the matter is this. Even is SR & GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence against a fluid aether (a stationary one is illogical

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, [ ... ] You called me a crank in two different posts, now. Sigh... OK, you're right, at the very least I insinuated it pretty strongly... I shouldn't have done that. I'm sorry I called you a crank, and if you don't assert that my religion must be SR if

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Sure enough, no apology. Too bad.

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, Why do these discussions always have to end like this? > Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my "religion", after which I observed that "cranks" always seem to say that in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post. On March 5, after

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: Hi Harry, If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Another irrational argument. I know what f

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Harry, If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. > >>> It depends on where they are on the periodic table. >> Another irrational argument. I know what fus

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: > Hi Harry, > >>> If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted >>> to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should >>> create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. > >> It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an > atomic nu

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Harry, >> If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted >> to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should >> create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. > It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an atomic number greater than iron will relea

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Michel, > Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear physics David? Look up the atomic masses! You are confused about your own gender, let alone can you follow a physics discussion. Dave

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear physics David? Look up the atomic masses! Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: > If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted > to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a > vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an atomic number greater than iron will

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: End of discussion. You are irrational and brainwashed. Well that seems to end the discussion rather thoroughly.

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, > I'm no historian of science, but what Einstein appears to have contributed to SR is the insight to realize that the math could be made to stand on its own, without a hypothetical "ether". It is true that Einstein made the claim when he was younger that SR did not need an "ether," bu

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: > Hi Stephen, > >> I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity >> here. > >> Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is >> generally considered to be the "seminal" paper on SR was "On The >> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: > > > On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I > just used the metric to find the proper distances.) > > > I think we can stick to thought exp

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, > I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here. > Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the "seminal" paper on SR was "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and it covers a great deal more than the m

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I just used the metric to find the proper distances.) I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations. Einstein said he didn't understand his theory on

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: > > > On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this > topic in this mailing list after this message. > > > Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as i

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here. David Thomson wrote: > Hi Stephen, > >>> On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General >>> Relativity. > >> Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general >> relativity in the absence

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message. Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type to be ignored. John Berry wrote: > On 3/3/07,

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi John, > I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1 minute to answer them. > We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have the model covered so let's make an effort

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/4/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi John, > Ok, that didn't take long. > I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your theory is based on. I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to output free energy or create (

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, >> On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General >> Relativity. > Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general > relativity in the absence of mass (flat "background" space). Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The "link

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, (It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this sort with a blanket assertion that SR is "internally inconsistent", which, thankfully, you didn't do.) The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to trash SR

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, > (It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this sort with a blanket assertion that SR is "internally inconsistent", which, thankfully, you didn't do.) The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to trash SR by pointing out its maj

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Thank you for the civil and cogent reply; I'll dig through it and respond in detail later this weekend; don't have time right now. I also don't have time to dig into your paper right now, but will tackle that later also. I'm actually interested in alternative theories of this-and-that, and M

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message. John Berry wrote: On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: John Berry wrote: > It is the only possible model as SR is illogic

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi John, > Ok, that didn't take long. > I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your theory is based on. I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity. > Does it explain the vast ma

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi John, >> You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. > Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have heard of your theory. > But what good i

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi John, > For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a theory, how gravity works is a theory. But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory. > There is a difference between

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Hi Stephen, > When you say "Aether Physics model", do you mean aether as in "luminiferous aether", the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate? When I say "Aether Physics Model," I mean a fluid-dynamic-quantum Aether, just as it is explained in the paper. If so, how you do

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Berry wrote: > It is the only possible model as SR is illogical Well, that sure shoots down SR. SR has many logical inconsistencies, you can't not be aware of this. There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: It is the only possible model as SR is illogical Well, that sure shoots down SR. If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the "classical" aether theories, along with t

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

scussions because the cynics don't care > and those seeking the truth don't listen. > > > > Dave > > > -- > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

h the discussions because the cynics don't care and those seeking the truth don't listen. Dave -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David Thomson wrote: > Hi John, > > > > You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully > quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you > claim ought to be possible. > > http://www.16pi2.com

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I never bought his theory to start with so going into his forum to ask him for details would be more like just taking a jab at him than actually sincerely asking for information. Well, in my experience with Brits, they like the verbal j

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied ... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post. Maybe he didn't get it. It was a post to Vortex, back when he was a

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied ... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post. Maybe he didn't get it. His email address has changed since he went broadband. Also, I don't

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

David Thomson wrote: Hi John, You’re just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf You believe matter can be create

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

During the Renaissance (and before), many reasonable people scoffed at the idea that the Earth is spinning. The main (non-religious) objections were: 1) If the Earth is spinning then why doesn't the Earth move below a stone thrown straight up. 2) A body that is not anchored to the ground should

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

th don't listen. Dave _ From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to have a simple electrical

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

John Berry wrote: The problem is there is much that most ignore due to ***LIMITS*** they assume exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be understood or engineered. Sad, but very true. Regards, Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

- Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty ... > Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the > glass or emptying it? ...

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow, such pessimistic POV or humor. The latter. Didn't you recognize the method of suicide from Alice's Restaurant? Terry, so positive I repell electrons.

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

Terry Blanton wrote: > On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I wonder what would happen if I >> placed an appreciable price, say $100. > > You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business > without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they >

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wonder what would happen if I placed an appreciable price, say $100. You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they would trump up some charges against

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

RC Macaulay wrote: > May work in the new world of welfare but never in the saloon at Dime Box Texas. The characters that inhabit a Texas " beer joint" are a microcism of the US Congress. For sure a fight will start as soon as somebody takes a sip outa somebody else's mug.. half full or half emp

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

he fight starts... Richard - Original Message - From: David Thomson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty Hi John, The answer is easier obtained by taking two glasses, one full and one empty, and t

RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass' person myself. Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

bject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty ... > Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the > glass or emptying it? ...

Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty

I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass' person myself. Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the glass or emptying it? On 3/2/07, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote From what I'm seeing Vo dominated b