---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: http://aethro-kinematics.com/
From: 'Akira Kanda' <ka...@cs.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, July 12, 2018 9:51 am
To: 'Robert Neil Boyd Ph D' <rnbo...@comcast.net>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil,
This kind of anti-sceince attitude coming from insecurity of physicists
which will make physics a laughing stock to even middle school students.
Only an absolute anti-science thinkers will say that everything is OK with
the claim that the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2 even though the work
needed to do acceleration from m0 to mv needs not be (mv^2)/2. If
physicists are to regain public trust and respect they have to come clear
on this fatal issue. I have shown you that physics is nothing but a cult!
Main stream or dissident, this problem is shared among all of physicists.
Scientific honesty is in question.
We are determined to nail this fake science which mislead the entire
humanity for centuries. As I told you, Newton rejected energy. I presume
he knew this problem. We will make sure that this lie will stop. If
e=(mv^2)/2 does not bother you, what you are doing is not science, it is
cult! More and more people are now realizing that the so called physics
is more corrupted than the middle age Vatican cosmology. Vatican
theologians were honest. When they discovered that all of their 'proof'
for the existence of God was false as they assumed the existence of God to
prove the existence of God, they abandoned predicative reasoning and went
into modal logic from which today's information science benefits a lot.
I am pointing out the truth that the trouble of physics did not start with
relativity theory and quantum mechanics. They are also victims of the Post
Newtonian classical mechanics and em theory. When they introduced the
concept of energy without noticing that this concept is illegitimate,
physics stepped into a deep dung heap. After that physics became a cult a
most destructive cult.
I do not put cloth on my mouth when it comes to scientific truth. So,
sometimes I may be too direct. But it is what has to be done. What we need
is the truth and it does not come from indoctrination or social skill. We
have to discuss! I do not tolerate any bull shitting! I will clearly say,
something is wrong when it is wrong. This is the way of science. I also
make it clear that I do not understand if I do not understand. It is
called scientific honesty which the 20th century physics completely lost.
So, I will remind you that if you really think you are OK with what you
said to me about e=(mv^2)/2, you must make sure that you never use the
concept of energy in your work. What is Poingting vector about, b.t.w.?
Aether theory does not deal with Pointing vector?
Akira
>
> I wish you would bother to read the messages I take the time and
> trouble to compose and to send to you.
>
> It is obvious you did not read the entire of my most recent
> message.
>
>
> I am not a theoretician. I am an experimentalist.
>
> Your complaints are best directed elsewhere.
>
> I am not going to get involved with your mv ^2 arguments which
> have no bearing on any my experiments or instrumented
> observations, especially when you demonstrate that you do not
> listen to anything I say.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
>
> On 7/11/2018 2:56 PM, Akira Kanda wrote:
>
> Neil, let us make it very simple and clear. Just straight
> into the issues. Everything started with Newton's theology
> of the universe. Everything else is its derivative. I am not
> discussing the derivatives. I am asking about the most
> important foundation. I do not see why you are taalking about
> the frill issue of terminal sciences to consider this crisis
> at the deepest level of physical science. It is just a matter
> of very basic logical reasoning. We need no fancy frills to
> cover up the real issues. I am asking physicists a very
> simple question on the concept of energy and its conservation
> law. Interestingly Newton did not work on this issue thought
> he considered momentum. As I keep saying Newton was a great
> improvement to all of his successors who tried to cash in the
> glory of his work through twisting his original work. The
> work needed to accelerate from m0 to mv is depending upon the
> way we accelerate. It is not correct to say that it is
> (mv^2)/2, which is the case only for very limited cases such
> as constant acceleration. Then why is the 'kinetic energy' of
> mv (mv^2)/2? As I said, this is a middle school level
> physics question. Why is it that nobody at the top of the
> hierarchy of the tens of billions of dollars public funding
> guzzling community can not come up with any satisfactory
> answer to this middle school level question. Their 'answer'
> is always diversion from the real issues. I do not need any
> reference to other field of science in which they use theory
> of physics which is based upon this highly questionable
> concept of energy and their conservation law. The answer must
> come from something as basic as the theory of physics if not
> more. This is called normal reasoning, or logic. Anything
> which uses this questionable assumption of kinetic energy can
> not answer to this question at the pain of vicious
> circularity. It is this totally corrupted culture of physics
> which lead theoretical physic to this totally laughable and
> well deserved end. Now young generation of scientists
> consider physicists liars or totally confused people, a most
> corrupted authoritarian minds in human history. I think they
> have some kind of intellectual identity crisis emanating from
> their superiority complex. So, you are saying that to
> understand why the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2 one has
> to understand the most advanced cosmology which is based upon
> this assumption about kinetic energy and the conservation law
> of energy in general. I feel dizzy now Neil. We
> mathematicians are normal thinkers. We make our human
> reasoning a little more precise. This is our world. The world
> of physics is so advanced and esoteric that we need to think
> differently form the way we normal people do? Akira
> Have a look at this:
> http://aethro-kinematics.com/ On 7/11/2018 3:51 AM,
> Akira Kanda wrote: Neil, Here are some
> more to ask. [1] As I said the concept of energy makes no
> sense at all. It is a myth. Then why are people talking about
> dark energy? I insist that those who discuss dark energy
> provide coherent acceptable concept of energy. First explain
> why the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2. Whenever, I ask
> this uncomfortable question, there is a deadly science.
> Physicists just ignore it and move on. What is going on? Come
> on, it is the 'most important and fundamental' concept of
> physics which curiously Newton did not talk about.
> It seems to me you need to investigate what is energy a
> little bit more. .
> I had questions about what is energy in the 7th grade.
> I was given a definition of work and a definition of
> power, both of which require energy. I was also
> given the definitions of kinetic energy and potential
> energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy Type of
> energy Description Mechanical
> the sum of macroscopic translational
> and rotational kinetic and potential energies
> Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric
> fields Magnetic
> potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
> Gravitational potential energy due to
> or stored in gravitational fields
> Chemical potential energy due to chemical
> bonds Ionization
> potential energy that binds an electron to its atom
> or molecule Nuclear
> potential energy that binds nucleons to form
> the atomic nucleus (and nuclear reactions) Chromodynamic
> potential energy that binds quarks
> to form hadrons Elastic
> potential energy due to the deformation of a material
> (or its container) exhibiting a restorative force
> Mechanical wave kinetic and
> potential energy in an elastic material due to a
> propagated deformational wave Sound
> wave kinetic and potential energy in a fluid due to a
> sound propagated wave (a particular form of
> mechanical wave) Radiant potential
> energy stored in the fields of propagated by
> electromagnetic radiation, including light
> Rest
> potential energy due to an object's rest mass Thermal
> kinetic energy of the microscopic
> motion of particles, a form of disordered equivalent of
> mechanical energy In the International System of
> Units (SI), the unit of energy is the joule, named after
> James Prescott Joule. It is a derived unit. It is equal to
> the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force
> of one newton through a distance of one metre. However
> energy is also expressed in many other units not part
> of the SI, such as ergs, calories, British Thermal
> Units, kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, which
> require a conversion factor when expressed in SI units. The
> SI unit of energy rate (energy per unit time) is the watt,
> which is a joule per second. Thus, one joule is one
> watt-second, and 3600 joules equal one watt-hour. The
> CGS energy unit is the erg and the imperial and
> US customary unit is the foot pound. Other energy units such
> as the electronvolt, food calorie or thermodynamic kcal
> (based on the temperature change of water in a heating
> process), and BTU are used in specific areas of science
> and commerce. You also seem to want to do away with
> fields entirely. That is not going to work out too well for
> you. And what do you propose to replace fields with? I am
> interested in physical systems and in being able to predict
> their behaviors so I can build new technologies that function
> perfectly. More later, Neil [2] To
> those who say that wave is the foundation of physics, I have
> the following question: What does it mean to apply force to a
> part of wave media? More generally what does it mean to apply
> force to a physical body which has geometric shape and
> dimension? Newton knew the difficulty and so he idealized the
> situation only to consider force upon a point mass. As we
> know force is a vector which has a pointed end. How can this
> pointed end exert force upon a cube for example? What does it
> mean precisely by a sphere moving with speed v. If the
> sphere is spinning too, what does it really mean? I do not
> know how to articulate these concepts mathematically. I
> understand Newton's idea of a force vector pushing a point
> mass OK. No problem. I do not know what contemporary
> physicists are doing and what they are saying at all. It
> sounds all obscure, sorry for harsh words but I think the
> kings must be told now. When I asked them these uneasy
> uncomfortable questions, most of them just walked way or
> changed the topics. Some of them became visibly less than
> cordial and called me 'crank'. I met some theoretical
> physicists who told me 'I hate people like you.' [3] I can
> not understand what does it mean by force exerted on a
> non-point shape physical object changes the shape of the
> object etc. I just do not understand on what ground these
> people are making their argument. We are having serious
> problems with figuring out what is the kinetic energy of a
> point mass m moving with speed v. This is not as simple as
> theoretical physicists think. Give me a mathematical
> definition of a ball moving with speed v while spinning. So
> far I met no theoretical physicist who came up with any
> decent answer. same switch the precise mathematical
> explanation of what happens when we kick a ball on the ground
> hat they do and what they say makes practical sense and they
> never claim that they can explain the nature of things at
> all. [4] Going back to aether theory, I do not understand
> how is it possible that such a complex theory of aether can
> explicate the most basic physics of electromagnetic charges.
> It makes good sense that Gauss and Weber did not use either
> aether nor em field. Neil, I have a question. Maxwell and his
> field theory failed because force field violates action
> reaction law. We can not represent local phenomena globally
> using force field. This is the lesson we have to learn from
> newton who ignored the concept of force field for very good
> reason. My question is that aether is a global entity which
> covers the entire universe. How such global continuum entity
> gives birth to totally local theory of electromagnetism of
> Gauss-Weber. For me the direction should e opposite. We have
> to start with Gauss-Weber and then move on to electrical
> engineering. Electrical engineering will not give us the
> physics of electromagnetism. I just do not understand how is
> it possible to give birth to particle based theory of
> electromagnetism from continuum theory of em fields or
> aether. It makes no mathematical sense. In mathematics, it
> took a long time to reach the world of real continuum from
> discrete world of natural numbers. It did not go the other
> way around. The price we paid for the wrong approach of em
> field theory of Maxwell was that we ended up wit a
> contradiction: the so called Lawrence force. Of course no
> theoretical physicists see that this is a problem. They never
> ever thought that this a problem. The truth of the matter is
> that this is in complete contradiction with Newton's second
> law. Sorry electrical engineering may be OK but the physical
> 'theory' of electromagnetic field is nonsense. So, Niel, I am
> asking you how this contradiction is resolved in aether
> theory. I asked this question to some aether theorists and I
> received no answer. They were as rude as mainstream. Akira
>

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: http://aethro-kinematics.com/
From: 'Akira Kanda' <ka...@cs.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, July 12, 2018 9:51 am
To: 'Robert Neil Boyd Ph D' <rnbo...@comcast.net>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil,
This kind of anti-sceince attitude coming from insecurity of physicists
which will make physics a laughing stock to even middle school students.
Only an absolute anti-science thinkers will say that everything is OK with
the claim that the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2 even though the work
needed to do acceleration from m0 to mv needs not be (mv^2)/2. If
physicists are to regain public trust and respect they have to come clear
on this fatal issue. I have shown you that physics is nothing but a cult!
Main stream or dissident, this problem is shared among all of physicists.
Scientific honesty is in question.
We are determined to nail this fake science which mislead the entire
humanity for centuries. As I told you, Newton rejected energy. I presume
he knew this problem. We will make sure that this lie will stop. If
e=(mv^2)/2 does not bother you, what you are doing is not science, it is
cult! More and more people are now realizing that the so called physics
is more corrupted than the middle age Vatican cosmology. Vatican
theologians were honest. When they discovered that all of their 'proof'
for the existence of God was false as they assumed the existence of God to
prove the existence of God, they abandoned predicative reasoning and went
into modal logic from which today's information science benefits a lot.
I am pointing out the truth that the trouble of physics did not start with
relativity theory and quantum mechanics. They are also victims of the Post
Newtonian classical mechanics and em theory. When they introduced the
concept of energy without noticing that this concept is illegitimate,
physics stepped into a deep dung heap. After that physics became a cult a
most destructive cult.
I do not put cloth on my mouth when it comes to scientific truth. So,
sometimes I may be too direct. But it is what has to be done. What we need
is the truth and it does not come from indoctrination or social skill. We
have to discuss! I do not tolerate any bull shitting! I will clearly say,
something is wrong when it is wrong. This is the way of science. I also
make it clear that I do not understand if I do not understand. It is
called scientific honesty which the 20th century physics completely lost.
So, I will remind you that if you really think you are OK with what you
said to me about e=(mv^2)/2, you must make sure that you never use the
concept of energy in your work. What is Poingting vector about, b.t.w.?
Aether theory does not deal with Pointing vector?
Akira
>
> I wish you would bother to read the messages I take the time and
> trouble to compose and to send to you.
>
> It is obvious you did not read the entire of my most recent
> message.
>
>
> I am not a theoretician. I am an experimentalist.
>
> Your complaints are best directed elsewhere.
>
> I am not going to get involved with your mv ^2 arguments which
> have no bearing on any my experiments or instrumented
> observations, especially when you demonstrate that you do not
> listen to anything I say.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
>
> On 7/11/2018 2:56 PM, Akira Kanda wrote:
>
> Neil, let us make it very simple and clear. Just straight
> into the issues. Everything started with Newton's theology
> of the universe. Everything else is its derivative. I am not
> discussing the derivatives. I am asking about the most
> important foundation. I do not see why you are taalking about
> the frill issue of terminal sciences to consider this crisis
> at the deepest level of physical science. It is just a matter
> of very basic logical reasoning. We need no fancy frills to
> cover up the real issues. I am asking physicists a very
> simple question on the concept of energy and its conservation
> law. Interestingly Newton did not work on this issue thought
> he considered momentum. As I keep saying Newton was a great
> improvement to all of his successors who tried to cash in the
> glory of his work through twisting his original work. The
> work needed to accelerate from m0 to mv is depending upon the
> way we accelerate. It is not correct to say that it is
> (mv^2)/2, which is the case only for very limited cases such
> as constant acceleration. Then why is the 'kinetic energy' of
> mv (mv^2)/2? As I said, this is a middle school level
> physics question. Why is it that nobody at the top of the
> hierarchy of the tens of billions of dollars public funding
> guzzling community can not come up with any satisfactory
> answer to this middle school level question. Their 'answer'
> is always diversion from the real issues. I do not need any
> reference to other field of science in which they use theory
> of physics which is based upon this highly questionable
> concept of energy and their conservation law. The answer must
> come from something as basic as the theory of physics if not
> more. This is called normal reasoning, or logic. Anything
> which uses this questionable assumption of kinetic energy can
> not answer to this question at the pain of vicious
> circularity. It is this totally corrupted culture of physics
> which lead theoretical physic to this totally laughable and
> well deserved end. Now young generation of scientists
> consider physicists liars or totally confused people, a most
> corrupted authoritarian minds in human history. I think they
> have some kind of intellectual identity crisis emanating from
> their superiority complex. So, you are saying that to
> understand why the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2 one has
> to understand the most advanced cosmology which is based upon
> this assumption about kinetic energy and the conservation law
> of energy in general. I feel dizzy now Neil. We
> mathematicians are normal thinkers. We make our human
> reasoning a little more precise. This is our world. The world
> of physics is so advanced and esoteric that we need to think
> differently form the way we normal people do? Akira
> Have a look at this:
> http://aethro-kinematics.com/ On 7/11/2018 3:51 AM,
> Akira Kanda wrote: Neil, Here are some
> more to ask. [1] As I said the concept of energy makes no
> sense at all. It is a myth. Then why are people talking about
> dark energy? I insist that those who discuss dark energy
> provide coherent acceptable concept of energy. First explain
> why the kinetic energy of mv is (mv^2)/2. Whenever, I ask
> this uncomfortable question, there is a deadly science.
> Physicists just ignore it and move on. What is going on? Come
> on, it is the 'most important and fundamental' concept of
> physics which curiously Newton did not talk about.
> It seems to me you need to investigate what is energy a
> little bit more. .
> I had questions about what is energy in the 7th grade.
> I was given a definition of work and a definition of
> power, both of which require energy. I was also
> given the definitions of kinetic energy and potential
> energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy Type of
> energy Description Mechanical
> the sum of macroscopic translational
> and rotational kinetic and potential energies
> Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric
> fields Magnetic
> potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
> Gravitational potential energy due to
> or stored in gravitational fields
> Chemical potential energy due to chemical
> bonds Ionization
> potential energy that binds an electron to its atom
> or molecule Nuclear
> potential energy that binds nucleons to form
> the atomic nucleus (and nuclear reactions) Chromodynamic
> potential energy that binds quarks
> to form hadrons Elastic
> potential energy due to the deformation of a material
> (or its container) exhibiting a restorative force
> Mechanical wave kinetic and
> potential energy in an elastic material due to a
> propagated deformational wave Sound
> wave kinetic and potential energy in a fluid due to a
> sound propagated wave (a particular form of
> mechanical wave) Radiant potential
> energy stored in the fields of propagated by
> electromagnetic radiation, including light
> Rest
> potential energy due to an object's rest mass Thermal
> kinetic energy of the microscopic
> motion of particles, a form of disordered equivalent of
> mechanical energy In the International System of
> Units (SI), the unit of energy is the joule, named after
> James Prescott Joule. It is a derived unit. It is equal to
> the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force
> of one newton through a distance of one metre. However
> energy is also expressed in many other units not part
> of the SI, such as ergs, calories, British Thermal
> Units, kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, which
> require a conversion factor when expressed in SI units. The
> SI unit of energy rate (energy per unit time) is the watt,
> which is a joule per second. Thus, one joule is one
> watt-second, and 3600 joules equal one watt-hour. The
> CGS energy unit is the erg and the imperial and
> US customary unit is the foot pound. Other energy units such
> as the electronvolt, food calorie or thermodynamic kcal
> (based on the temperature change of water in a heating
> process), and BTU are used in specific areas of science
> and commerce. You also seem to want to do away with
> fields entirely. That is not going to work out too well for
> you. And what do you propose to replace fields with? I am
> interested in physical systems and in being able to predict
> their behaviors so I can build new technologies that function
> perfectly. More later, Neil [2] To
> those who say that wave is the foundation of physics, I have
> the following question: What does it mean to apply force to a
> part of wave media? More generally what does it mean to apply
> force to a physical body which has geometric shape and
> dimension? Newton knew the difficulty and so he idealized the
> situation only to consider force upon a point mass. As we
> know force is a vector which has a pointed end. How can this
> pointed end exert force upon a cube for example? What does it
> mean precisely by a sphere moving with speed v. If the
> sphere is spinning too, what does it really mean? I do not
> know how to articulate these concepts mathematically. I
> understand Newton's idea of a force vector pushing a point
> mass OK. No problem. I do not know what contemporary
> physicists are doing and what they are saying at all. It
> sounds all obscure, sorry for harsh words but I think the
> kings must be told now. When I asked them these uneasy
> uncomfortable questions, most of them just walked way or
> changed the topics. Some of them became visibly less than
> cordial and called me 'crank'. I met some theoretical
> physicists who told me 'I hate people like you.' [3] I can
> not understand what does it mean by force exerted on a
> non-point shape physical object changes the shape of the
> object etc. I just do not understand on what ground these
> people are making their argument. We are having serious
> problems with figuring out what is the kinetic energy of a
> point mass m moving with speed v. This is not as simple as
> theoretical physicists think. Give me a mathematical
> definition of a ball moving with speed v while spinning. So
> far I met no theoretical physicist who came up with any
> decent answer. same switch the precise mathematical
> explanation of what happens when we kick a ball on the ground
> hat they do and what they say makes practical sense and they
> never claim that they can explain the nature of things at
> all. [4] Going back to aether theory, I do not understand
> how is it possible that such a complex theory of aether can
> explicate the most basic physics of electromagnetic charges.
> It makes good sense that Gauss and Weber did not use either
> aether nor em field. Neil, I have a question. Maxwell and his
> field theory failed because force field violates action
> reaction law. We can not represent local phenomena globally
> using force field. This is the lesson we have to learn from
> newton who ignored the concept of force field for very good
> reason. My question is that aether is a global entity which
> covers the entire universe. How such global continuum entity
> gives birth to totally local theory of electromagnetism of
> Gauss-Weber. For me the direction should e opposite. We have
> to start with Gauss-Weber and then move on to electrical
> engineering. Electrical engineering will not give us the
> physics of electromagnetism. I just do not understand how is
> it possible to give birth to particle based theory of
> electromagnetism from continuum theory of em fields or
> aether. It makes no mathematical sense. In mathematics, it
> took a long time to reach the world of real continuum from
> discrete world of natural numbers. It did not go the other
> way around. The price we paid for the wrong approach of em
> field theory of Maxwell was that we ended up wit a
> contradiction: the so called Lawrence force. Of course no
> theoretical physicists see that this is a problem. They never
> ever thought that this a problem. The truth of the matter is
> that this is in complete contradiction with Newton's second
> law. Sorry electrical engineering may be OK but the physical
> 'theory' of electromagnetic field is nonsense. So, Niel, I am
> asking you how this contradiction is resolved in aether
> theory. I asked this question to some aether theorists and I
> received no answer. They were as rude as mainstream. Akira
>