I have read his papers. He clearly deserves more respect.
As for that simple spring, he often refers to Hooke's formula: energy =
(1/2)* f * l. The force is your k*x. the l (length) is your x.
Your writing reads like this: "consult your junior high physical science
book for the correct formula".
Ned
Einsteinhoax needs to realize that before sh.tting on current physics,
that current physics is thoroughly tested in the lab. I'm pretty sure
he gets his science reading from CNN, not from researching the piles of
careful, peer reviewed work. For instance, he is certain quantum
mechanics has shown relativity to be wrong because of popular reports
that EPR-like teleportation have demonstrated faster than light
phenomenology. WRONG. A look in the literature will show that Bell's
inequalities have been shown to be too restrictive to constrain
reality. Hence hidden variable theories are back in the game, and
hidden variable theories based on Brownian motion have been shown to
lead to quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum mechanics since the
1960s. The, jury, at best, is still out, and may remain so forever as
some work is showing that we may never be able to distinguish between
whether hidden variable theories can be valid or not. I cited the
literature in another post if you are interested.
Eienstein hoax musn't have any math skills of substance. He is
dumbfounded that one derives the Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's
equations, apparently unaware that the Lorentz transformations are
"built in" to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are invariant
under Lorentz transformations. Not understanding any of this, he
proposes using an alternate route including E=mc^2 as if this is a more
fundamental approach?!*? What can be more fundamental than Maxwell's
equations, both in their classical form, or in their second quantized
form? From classical electrondynamics to QED, Maxwell's equations jive
with data from the lab to many, many decimal places.
Einsteinhoax needs to understand that new physical theories need to
make testable predictions. Based on reading his crap, he is convinced
physicists are completely faithful in their belief of string theory.
Physicists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to determine
whether many theories are true or false, eg., the Higgs boson or
bosons, supersymmetry, string theory, large extra dimensions, and so
forth. If the LHC is too wimpy to answer all questions, then
physicists must build a larger collider. If the LHC opens up new
phenomenology, then new, competing theories will have to be created,
and, ULTIMATELY, test in the lab. All Einsteinhoax does is crap on old
theories of physics. Well then, where in hell is his theory? Can he
tell me if there are more than three generations of leptons? Is SUSY
bullshit? Does the speed of light, or other physical constants, change
with time?
>From a different point of view, given that there are error bars in
physics, I would be able to entertain Einsteinhoax's theories.
Physical constants, for example, are known only to so many decimal
places, and only with so much certainty in terms of the standard error
statistic. There may (or not) be new physics lurking within these
uncertaintly/error bars. How does one distinguish, say, one
post-Newtonian theory of gravity from another when, say, radar echo
data from Venus doesn't have enough statistical certainty to
distinguish the two theories? One does so by improving technology.
Again, where is a single Einsteinhoax theory?
The bottom line is that Einsteinhoax knows no physics. On his webpage
he has a design (a real, honest to goodness design) of a machine that
violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well then, as this machine
separates fast, energetic molecules from slower, less energetic
molecules without any net work put into the system, once the molecules
are separated, his machine can be used to push a piston, and then, once
again for free, reset itself for a new cycle. WOW!!! Why isn't this
machine on the market!!! In light of free flow of information on the
internet, I don't want to hear any conspiracy theories about the
government squashing his machine. His design is on the net! Instead,
I would rather hear his rebuttle of why, as I pointed out to him, the
machine will fail. I'm waiting.
AA