Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

Here's a better other view:

checkershadow_proof_small.png



What about it, g4macdad, can your experiences fool you?
 
Huntsman said:
Speaking of Einstein...

Even the major mathematical portion of his theories relied on Lorentz's equations. He didn't even figure out the math, he just found out that Lorentz transforms applied to the physics he was putting together.
Click to expand...

Lorentz came up with his length contraction formulas to try to explain the Michealson-Moorley experiment in terms of an aether theory. But the length contraction formulas are only a subset of what are now considered the full Lorentz transformations (namely, the set of continuous transforms which preserve distances in the Minkowski metric), and the full Lorentz transforms were NOT developed by Lorentz himself. Many people were trying to reconcile the conflict between Maxwell's equations and Galilean relativity, and most of the attempts were appeals to an eather. Einstein may not have come up with all the math, but he was the first to understand the most critical aspect of all of this, the part that was hardest to accept and least intuitive: there was no need for an aether at all, and that Galilean relativity should be supplanted in all areas of physics by a new kind of relativity. And that allowed him to be the first to put it all together and, most importantly, to make sense of it.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Secondly, the reaction to a rather innocuous post pointing out that Einstein may have actually worked his way through a body of knowledge and research done by others is a major clue......

So, you're of the genius-from-bolt-of-lightening school? Newton really put together the Theory of Gravity sitting under a tree and getting hit on the head with an apple? Columbus really sat on a beach and observed a ship disappearing over the horizon and surmised that the world was round? No one had ever done any work on either of these topics before them?

This is typically the mark of the bright guys who don't like to do any work.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz, his post goes beyond what you wrote, although I completely agree with it.

g4 is completely without knowledge of the scientific process. He believes that major achievements are NOT basically overlays of what has been determined previously. As a matter of fact, that is how most of us adjudge new hypotheses: by evaluating them on the basis of what we already know. Maybe he would say that Pasteur came up with is insights from whole cloth but that would not be true either. He's merely too lazy to investigate and study the history of their theories or not sufficiently intelligent enough to comprehend that genius does not really lie in realizing the undiscoverable but to synthesize what is known all together into a novel, working, falisfiable system.

What puzzles me about woos like g4 is their ability to hone in on phenomena at the pinnacle of our understanding while making Herculean leaps over all the phenomena that would contradict their beliefs. For example, why doesn't g4 state the the Sun is eternal because it has radiated for over 40 minutes without apparent input? Why doesn't he believe that the world will be completely inundated after observing his first waterfall, a system of generating water without apparent input? Shouldn't ants and bees have overcome the Earth to this point, seeing that taking a stick to their homes, they pour out in endless numbers?

So, instead, we have this ignorant loudmouth pestering others with his naivete. A nievete that, to my mind, is the only self-perpetuating mechanism evident in this discussion. Not only has he ignored the obvious but he obstinately rationalizes his automatic dismissal of contradicting information. Couple this with his lack of social grace and integrity, and we have a fairly complete picture of the g4 psyche.

He has offered, wittingly or not, an excuse for what he is. He states that he he is an artist or other such seemingly unscientific enterprise and that he is successful at that. He should know better. Playing an instrument is one of the crowning achievements of practical physics. In the study and mastery of the practice of music are hidden many great phenomena that g4 should be aware of by now but he is not. Why do guitar strings not vibrate forever once activated? Is there no simpler mechanism than that? Is that not a "normal" pendulum once you get down to it? Would he be playing what he is playing now without the greats before him, most of whose names have escaped history? Who in his pebbly little mind came up with chord structure and the harmonic scales? Does he think he did or that they were developed by accident? Possibly so. In my mnd, g4 is, at best, an unthinking regeneration machine of others' work completely blind to the underpinnings of what he's doing.

Let's just thank FSM there aren't more like him. :eye-poppi
 
Foolmewunz said:
Newton really put together the Theory of Gravity sitting under a tree and getting hit on the head with an apple?
Click to expand...

The story is apocryphal, but it's a pet pieve of mine that so few people know what the apocryphal story actually is. It makes no sense that Newton seeing (or feeling) an apple fall would lead him to any profound discovery, because everyone discovers (at a pretty young age, too) that things fall. So an apple hitting him on the head is not much of a story, and there's no point in inventing a story to explain his discovery if it's not at least a bit interesting.

So what's the "real" story? Newton was under an apple tree, an apple fell on him, he looked up, and he saw the moon. At at that moment he connected the apple falling and the moon's orbit around the earth as being the same: the moon is doing the exact same thing the apple did, namely falling towards the earth. It's precisely the universality of Newton's universal law of gravity which made it significant and revolutionary. It was a revalation that the forces which governed celestial mechanics were exactly the same ones which we encounter on a daily basis. Drop the moon from the story, and it becomes nonsensical. Sure, it's probably a fake story, but I prefer even made-up stories to at least make sense.
 
Last edited:
:)

Now I know why the story of the Newton and the apple never appealed to me and why I have never in my whole life considered repeating it to anyone. This changes everything. Next chance I get....
 
Ziggurat said:
Lorentz came up with his length contraction formulas to try to explain the Michealson-Moorley experiment in terms of an aether theory. But the length contraction formulas are only a subset of what are now considered the full Lorentz transformations (namely, the set of continuous transforms which preserve distances in the Minkowski metric), and the full Lorentz transforms were NOT developed by Lorentz himself. Many people were trying to reconcile the conflict between Maxwell's equations and Galilean relativity, and most of the attempts were appeals to an eather. Einstein may not have come up with all the math, but he was the first to understand the most critical aspect of all of this, the part that was hardest to accept and least intuitive: there was no need for an aether at all, and that Galilean relativity should be supplanted in all areas of physics by a new kind of relativity. And that allowed him to be the first to put it all together and, most importantly, to make sense of it.
Click to expand...

Well, I was close :)

Of course, your corrections just go even further to prove the point everyone was making: none of these peopel did 100% of their own work. Lorentz relied on earlier work, and Einstein made the realization regarding his transforms. I can't recall who said it, but there is the old quote (paraphrase): "If I can see so far today, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants".
 
Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke:
"If I have ssen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
 
Ziggurat, Slimething .....

I do so enjoy it when something I sort of grope my way through brings back responses from people better informed in their fields. My formal education was very limited (high school dropout) and I'm woefully weak in the sciences.
I guess I'm actually a little like G4 in that I "logic it out" from readings and personal observations... we just seem to come to different conclusions (to put it mildly).

The correction on the original UL about Newton gives it so much more sensibility. I really like that and will no doubt use it (I teach withing my company).....

So, I guess like all good guerrilla warriors G4 has gone off to the hills to retrench for another battle in another village on another day.:spjimlad:
 
G4 last post was in reply to a post sandwiched between the checker board illusion and it's solution. I think he just managed to reply to that post before the those images short circuited his brain.

Perhaps we'll hear from his doctor soon.
 
BillyJoe said:
:)

Now I know why the story of the Newton and the apple never appealed to me and why I have never in my whole life considered repeating it to anyone. This changes everything. Next chance I get....
Click to expand...

[pointless tangent]
When Canadian astronaut Steve Maclean went up on the shuttle recently, he selected some 'special' apple seeds to take as his personal momentos of his trip in space. The seeds were from an apple from a tree growing at York university. The apple trees at York university are decended from the tree that the falling apple was suposed to have come from. Link.
[/pointless tangent]
 
Ziggurat said:
The story is apocryphal, but it's a pet pieve of mine that so few people know what the apocryphal story actually is. It makes no sense that Newton seeing (or feeling) an apple fall would lead him to any profound discovery, because everyone discovers (at a pretty young age, too) that things fall. So an apple hitting him on the head is not much of a story, and there's no point in inventing a story to explain his discovery if it's not at least a bit interesting.

So what's the "real" story? Newton was under an apple tree, an apple fell on him, he looked up, and he saw the moon. At at that moment he connected the apple falling and the moon's orbit around the earth as being the same: the moon is doing the exact same thing the apple did, namely falling towards the earth. It's precisely the universality of Newton's universal law of gravity which made it significant and revolutionary. It was a revalation that the forces which governed celestial mechanics were exactly the same ones which we encounter on a daily basis. Drop the moon from the story, and it becomes nonsensical. Sure, it's probably a fake story, but I prefer even made-up stories to at least make sense.
Click to expand...

Whilst I can see your point I'd also say that the apple falling could well have been the conclusion of a brain fart. He's got all these data points floating in his head, warm summer day, a few pints (safer than drinking water at the time) - apple falls on head and suddenly it all resolves itself...
Of course that's a huge IMO but I'm sure most of us have had similar moments - although not on the same scale:p
 
Loss Leader said:
I, for one, believe that this machine works. It does not create "free" energy; it harnesses energy from a parallel universe increasing the total available energy in our universe but also increasing entropy across the entire multiverse (like a solar cell harnesses the sun's energy to increase available energy on earth but offset by draining energy from the sun). The single problem with this technology is that it may destroy a parallel universe in which other copies of ourselves are fighting to survive including, but not limited to, Dr. Rodney McCay who might need the help of his own sister to reverse the damage. And that's not the amazing part. The amazing part is that his sister is played by David Hewlett's ACTUAL FRICKIN' SISTER!

Oh brave, new world ...
Click to expand...

To make matters worse, if the people in the other universe discover this technology, they will destroy our universe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
 
CORed said:
To make matters worse, if the people in the other universe discover this technology, they will destroy our universe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
Click to expand...

I think it was Clifford Simak who wrote a short story about an inventor who discovered how to make stuff disappear from this universe by sending it to another. The best use he could find, and one that made him rich, was to use the effect to create a completely bag-less vacuum cleaner. Everything was going well until the folks in the other universe figured out how to send everything back.

(I tried a bit of Googling for the story without results -- but I believe it was Simak. :D)
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I think it was Clifford Simak who wrote a short story about an inventor who discovered how to make stuff disappear from this universe by sending it to another. The best use he could find, and one that made him rich, was to use the effect to create a completely bag-less vacuum cleaner. Everything was going well until the folks in the other universe figured out how to send everything back.

(I tried a bit of Googling for the story without results -- but I believe it was Simak. :D)
Click to expand...
or Lewis Padgett.
 
g4macdad said:
What? What are you in denial about?

Tell us what facts you dispute in a clear scientific manner.

I stated no laws have been broken. The energy is not created it is harnessed.
Click to expand...

Show us the independent peer-reviewed tests of your perpetual motion machine.

You don't have any? Then go away, scammer.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I think it was Clifford Simak who wrote a short story about an inventor who discovered how to make stuff disappear from this universe by sending it to another. The best use he could find, and one that made him rich, was to use the effect to create a completely bag-less vacuum cleaner. Everything was going well until the folks in the other universe figured out how to send everything back.

(I tried a bit of Googling for the story without results -- but I believe it was Simak. :D)
Click to expand...

Well, if the output of the bagless vacuum cleaner in the other universe was in interstellar space (most likely if that universe is similar to ours), no harm done. If it ended up in somebody's house, OTOH ...

Even worse if it's used to dispose of hazardous chemical waste or nuclear waste, which I would think would be more profitable than the bagless vacuum cleaner.
 
CORed said:
Well, if the output of the bagless vacuum cleaner in the other universe was in interstellar space (most likely if that universe is similar to ours), no harm done. If it ended up in somebody's house, OTOH ...

Even worse if it's used to dispose of hazardous chemical waste or nuclear waste, which I would think would be more profitable than the bagless vacuum cleaner.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's how we get to find all those incredible organic molecules in gas clouds in interstellar space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom