"EKurtz"  wrote:-

> >> > > JE:-
> >> > > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> >> > > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> >> > > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> >> > > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> >> > > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> >> > > refer back to at least one constant term in order
> >> > > to make any sense. [...]

> >> > TT:-
> >> > Very funny.
> >> > I note that:
> >> >   F = ma;
> >> > ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.

> >> JE:-
> >> I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> >> Within Newtonian mechanics
> >> Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> >> which in this case is simply implied by
> >> acceleration [...]

> > TT:-
> > Mass is a constant?!?
> > If so what is its value? ;-)

> EK:-
> What he probably means is that, for a given dynamical problem governed by
> the expression F = ma, the value of m is predefined at the outset
> and does
> not vary under the Newtonian model.

JE:-
All of Newtonian mechanics depends
of mass and time as abolute and not
relative _assumptions_. This means that
mass can be partitioned but only
mass can add or subtract mass
(similarly for time).

Each expression can only alter m or t
using additions or deletions of m and t.
For t, only additions are valid.
Employing -t is logical but not rational.
This is because a maximand cannot be negative.

> EK:-
> This is actually dead wrong;
> eg, F = ma
> applies to a jet plane taking off; since the plane is burning
> fuel, and fuel
> contributes to m, m is not a constant but a monotonically decreasing
> function of time. Since the pilot is also steadily increasing the
> thrust of
> the jets, F is also a function of time, so (ignoring air and tire
> resistance) we have
> F(t) = m(t)*a
> so the differential equation for instantaneous velocity v is
> dv/dt = F(t)/m(t)

JE:-
The above simply proves that EK is
indeed, a competent mathematician but
not competent scientist.

Jets are not the only objects
that can have forces applied to them
where the loss of fuel has nothing
to do with the logic discussed, anyway.

If you just throw a stone its mass must
remain a constant otherwise Newtonian
Mechanics stands refuted. Einstein
proved this was indeed, the case.


> > JE:-
> > Within Newtonian mechanics
> > Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> > which in this case is simply implied by
> > acceleration (a) because:
> >
> >       a = (change in v)/t

> EK:-
> This is also not true, unless a is constant. If a is not constant (eg the
> motion of an object falling under gravity through a viscous
> medium) then the
> differential form
> a = dv/dt
> must be used.

JE:-
The above does not matter in any way to
the argument that at least one constant
that represenets a maximand value must
exist for physics to be rational.

> > JE:-
> > This very basic assumption of Newtonian
> > mechanics was refuted by the Michealson-Morely
> > experiment.

> EK:-
> Wrong again; the MM experiment established that the speed of light is the
> same for all observers.

JE:-
EK's argument remains irrational.
Originally, the only way you could "established that
the speed of light is the same for all observers"
was to establish that c remains the _maximal_ velocity
of light in a vacuum for observers. Originally,
no way existed of putting different observers into
large enough velocities or measure the tiny time dilation
at different velocities for many different observers. All
that could be done is prove that c did not change with
a supposed aether as Newtonian Mechamics predicted
that it must otherwise Newton stood refuted.

> > EK:-
> > Einstein's special theory of relativity
> > was just a refinement of the so called Galileian
> > transformation:

> EK:-
> Wrong again; the transformation of coordinates that explains the
> results of
> the MM experiment was due to Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not
> Einstein. Einstein
> developed the Special Theory using the LF transformation as a starting
> point.

JE:-
In simple terms all the Galileian
transformation means is that
Galileo reversed cause and effect
by suggesting the sun was stationary
and not the earth. In effect he simply
transformed the stationary position
of the sun relative to the earh as
a new maximand. Previously the stationary
position of the earth had been a
maximand so he reversed their rational
postion within the same logical argument.
The same process applies to the transformation
of Newtonian physics to Special Relativity
theory. In Newton's view m and t were
maximands but c was just a variable.
In the transformation of Newton to
Special Relativity these were exactly
reversed: m and t became varaibles and
c a maximand.

My sincere regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/24/04 9:40:35 PM