Quantiative Science Before Galileo

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 16, 3:13 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

a-hem; ** yours, bro, two.  and, no;
it certainly is far from better.

mister Banerjee cannot take any criticism,

gotta understand it first.

such

as to bother to look anything up that is not immediately adjacent
to him in a googolplex or wookypoopeya search;

there you go

oh, well, or

even that, I suppose.

but, what does his formula, mean --
e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-)

has been around for a while, in hundreds of posts, since 2000 AD.
None so blind as those who won't see. Still, you got a point, and I
will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to
Straydoggie. Will do that, soon.

Having him post here is better than having him out on the street.

--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net

--forsooth, the Queen of the quadrivium!http://wlym.com

 

[spudnik]

nice phraseology, and certainly apt, and
I refer to the article on Kepler's view of Aristotle's bogus
astronomy,
belowsville

You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 15, 5:15 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

In article
2a28baaf-ec1f-46b7-b58c-e7bf49414...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,



 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:10 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

 Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.

You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social
science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science,
nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social
science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline.

In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very
many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture,
philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind.

As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer
review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for
its performance, organization or method.

The map is not the territory.

I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is
either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation
of peer review methods are social science not hard science.

You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.

You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.

The methodology is either hard science or soft science. It is soft
science, social science. This is only one example of how the science
community depends upon social science to communicate an prove research.

 

[John Stafford]

In article
<5507093c-d680-4dc8-b39b-8e38632beb9a@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.

You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.

Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within
their field to review the work - for better or worse, and in the case of
mathematics it is critical to seek the very best.

They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their
decision regarding the peers they choose.

Get over it. You don't know what you are writing about.

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 16, 9:40 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

OK, anyone can see that it is Liebniz's *vis viva*,
which got rid of Galileo's notion, I think ... except
for the N and the k factors  (and I forgot the factor of a half).

anyway, isn't that where e=mcc, comes from?

e=mcc comes from

c(v=V1) = c(v=V2) which comes from an analytical bungle from the null
results of the MMI experiment

as opposed to

c(v=V) = c(mu,ep) + V ... and as I have been showing recently Mother
Nature supports this formula

e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-)
will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to

--the Queen of the sciences!http://wlym.com

--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net

 

[Bret Cahill]

You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.

You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.

Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within
their field to review the work -

You don't think "hard" scientists can do "soft" science? Very often
they are better at soft science than those who have studied soft
science.

The atom bomb guy was the first to try chemo therapy.

for better or worse, and in the case of
mathematics

Math ain't a science.

.. . .

They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their
decision regarding the peers they choose.

Why would that be necessary?

Pavlov's dog could do a lot of "soft" science.


Bret Cahill

 

[spudnik]

where did the N and k go, and how is it different
from *vis viva*?... anyway,
there are lots of Einsteinmaniacs who believe that
"M&M got 'no result,'" but taht doesn't make it, so.

c(v=V1) = c(v=V2) which comes from an analytical bungle from the null
results of the MMI experiment as opposed to
c(v=V) = c(mu,ep) + V ...

thus:
you want credentials, check doctor S. Fred Singer's (or,
you could just *read* his old, retrospective metastudy
on glaciers.

thus:
anyone can grok spatial math,
just by beginning with the 14th Book of Euclid,
which is actually by Hypsicles; but, I can't do it
for you, either.

BP's cap&trade is before the Senate; it appears that
the financial reform bill actually puts-off regulating
the derivatives for so long, that it amounts to a "prelude"
to BP's cap and trade.

thus:
so, what is the difference between Liebniz' *vis viva*, and
your example with the N and the k?

thus:
I know what Thermite (TM) is, and I didn't even googol it.

Professor Dr Steven Jones, who sacrificed his career at BYU

thus:
if the entagnlement of two Newtonian rocks o'light,
could traansmit information, then it would be some thing, but
they are actually not photons per se.

thus:
more folks should know about this quantumization!

I no longer accept redshift as a Doppler motion and
that would have huge consequence to a Tifft quantization.

--BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
(of London, gated community & financial district), or
the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

Is it impossible for you to think straight? Looks like your skills
are vital for einsteinism!

 

[spudnik]

didn't get your notation in both cases, and
you didn't explain, either. I mean,
"c" paramaterized by mu and epsilon, or
"V" parameterized by N and k?

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 24, 2:24 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

didn't get your notation in both cases, and
you didn't explain, either.  I mean,
"c" paramaterized by mu and epsilon, or
"V" parameterized by N and k?

--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net

Why don't you try to derive e=0.5mVVN(N-k) from first principles? It
is as simple and vital as say
s=vt, v=u+at, s=ut+0.5att, vv=uu+2as, f=ma.
Give it a shot, and a real boost for theoretical physics.
I can do it in a few lines, published that often in Usenet. So you
can cheat if you want.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

 

[spudnik]

<deletia impletum>

I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.

thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??

thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!

  Iff ... then ...

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!
http://wlym.com

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

 <deletia impletum

I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.

thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??

thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!

  Iff ... then ...

--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net

--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com

Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With
respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a
velocity v. With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is
0.5Mvv. Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1. With
respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v,
which is v+v=2v with respect to R0. With respect to R0, his kinetic
energy is 0.5M(2v.2v). With N such "hits" his energy with respect to
R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is
expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body.
It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it
constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of
the distance covered by the body. This energy is related to the
energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv. In N hits,
the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy,
or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv
- 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote,
e=0.5MNvv(N-k).

I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000.
In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was
available freely from my website. This equation and its derivation
was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003. I
have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This
equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma,
vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc. With this equation, the universe is understood
much better. In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have
shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying
all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc. Once properly
grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

 

[Zinnic]

On Jul 26, 8:01 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:





 <deletia impletum

I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.

thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??

thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!

  Iff ... then ...

--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net

--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com

Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With
respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a
velocity v.  With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is
0.5Mvv.  Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1.  With
respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v,
which is v+v=2v with respect to R0.  With respect to R0, his kinetic
energy is 0.5M(2v.2v).  With N such "hits" his energy with respect to
R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is
expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body.
It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it
constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of
the distance covered by the body.  This energy is related to the
energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv.  In N hits,
the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy,
or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv
- 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote,
e=0.5MNvv(N-k).

I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000.
In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was
available freely from my website.  This equation and its derivation
was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003.  I
have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This
equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma,
vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc.  With this equation, the universe is understood
much better.  In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have
shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying
all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc.  Once properly
grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

" Let us say that for each hit, energy E isexpended and this energy
comes from an internal source in the body.It *has* to be the same for
each hit, for all it does is spend it constantly over the same time
period t and is totallyindependent ofthe distance covered by the body.

 

[spudnik]

can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?

thus:
the first footnote shows the problem
with Newton's "theory" of emmission.

http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson detected
the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.

thus:
and, of course, disenfranchizing past felons
was also against the law, and Gore didn't do anything
about that; did he?

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Stop BP's cap&trade looting & toss them out of USA waters!
http://wlym.com

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?

By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so
on. This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained
in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else. If
we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v
to Nv. So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for
inefficiencies.

This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force
grounded to a R0 frame of reference. All natural phenomena and
explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new
formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1.

Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force. I
think I can do it next year.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 27, 11:30 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?

By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so
on.  This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained
in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else.  If
we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v
to Nv.  So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for
inefficiencies.

This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force
grounded to a R0 frame of reference.  All natural phenomena and
explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new
formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1.

Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force.  I
think I can do it next year.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

To make matters a bit clearer, a car accelerating on a road always
needs the road for it to go forward. The road is the R0 reference,
and it is providing the external force upon the car via the friction
upon the wheels. But an internal force engine does not need a road,
nor air to push back, nor water to push back. It works best in outer
space, where there is no opposing force, nor friction.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 27, 11:38 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jul 27, 11:30 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com
wrote:





On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?

By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so
on.  This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained
in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else.  If
we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v
to Nv.  So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for
inefficiencies.

This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force
grounded to a R0 frame of reference.  All natural phenomena and
explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new
formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1.

Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force.  I
think I can do it next year.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

To make matters a bit clearer, a car accelerating on a road always
needs the road for it to go forward.  The road is the R0 reference,
and it is providing the external force upon the car via the friction
upon the wheels.  But an internal force engine does not need a road,
nor air to push back, nor water to push back.  It works best in outer
space, where there is no opposing force, nor friction.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

So, the same energy you expend to take a step on a non-moving
platform, the same energy you take to take a step on a moving
platform. However in that same time, expending the same energy, you
move a longer distance with respect to the frame of reference of the
non-moving platform.

 

[spudnik]

friction is a loss to heat. there is always an opposing force, or
at least there is no vacuum that is too good to be true. I mean,
why do you think that light could have a speed (as opposed
to a velocity, for a rock o'light) ??

thus:
yeah, I'd forgotten about that, that the Florida dragnet disen-
franchized folks with similar names, most of whom happened
to be of African heritage, felons or not. (on the wayside,
Africa is an Arabic or Muslim name, esp. per Darfur.)

So maybe some of the felons weren't voting illegally anyway.

thus:
iff as definitional seems to make some sort of sense, but
what is wrong with "a raisin is a grape, if and only if
-- that is to say for short, IFF --
it had been thoroughly dessicated?"
The definition of iff comes from Liebniz,
his definition of proof as satisfying "neccesity & sufficiency,"
and that is a matter of using the words in a literate manner,
in some way. (of course, if you can even prove just one
of the two criteria, it is cake, at least
in synthetic geometry .-)

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/august08-fermat.pdf

 

[Bret Cahill]

That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
Earth.

When did who believe that?

Bret Cahill

      The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as
meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was
obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
BC.
      In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
      Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
    There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
were just trying to attract attention.
    Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
trip.
    Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
      There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
Copernicus.

Thanks.

They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but
science wasn't quantitative.

Not true.  Pi was rather well known 4K years ago. Earth's size has
been known for some time, too.

Geometry is math, not science.

Are you this doggy poopy stoopid in real life or are you just pulling
our legs?


Bret Cahill

 

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 27, 1:55 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:

friction is a loss to heat.

No, friction is a force.

 there is always an opposing force,

True, but as Schroeder's experiment with linear motors show, the
reaction is orthogonal.

or

at least there is no vacuum that is too good to be true.  I mean,
why do you think that light could have a speed (as opposed
to a velocity, for a rock o'light) ??

Light is a travelling electromagnetic wave motion, and its velocity
depends upon the medium through which it travels, and the speed of its
emitter. The former is proved in any microwave device with
dielectric, and the latter is proved by the null result of the MMI
experiment. The Doppler effect, where the frequency apparently varies
for a moving source or receiver, is a further indication.

Thus f = (c(mu, ep, v)/wavelength;
where c(mu, ep, v) = c(mu, ep) + v

Add e=0.5mvvN(N-k) and we have a spanking new theoretical physics.
Will take off, when all those in power are not such abominable racists
and bigots, cowards and liars, suck-ups, thieves and frauds. ie,
einsteinians.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee