On 10/7/2011 3:32 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> [Note: The following essay, written several years ago, was withdrawn
> because of a typo and never re posted.  I do so, now.]
> 
> Fundamental to the understanding of the dynamics of moving bodies are
> Newton’s three Laws of Motion: (1) LAW OF INERTIA: A body will remain
> at rest, or in a state of uniform motion, until acted upon by an
> unbalanced force.  (2) LAW OF ACCELERATION: The rate of change of
> momentum is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body,
> and is in the same direction.  The formula: F = ma.  (3)  LAW OF
> EQUIVALENT REACTIONS: For every action there is an equal and opposite
> reaction.
> 
>  From the time of Aristotle, interest in the dynamics of moving bodies
> centered on the dynamics of falling bodies—because those effects were
> so readily observable, and repeatable.  About 1600 Simon Stevin
> refuted Aristotle’s contention that “heavier objects fall faster than
> lighter objects.”  Beginning in 1604, Galileo began quantifying the
> acceleration of various sizes and materials of balls as those rolled
> down inclined planes of various slopes.  His trigonometric
> calculations were the first that approximated the acceleration of
> gravity to be 30 or so feet per second per second.  The present form
> of that expression is often written g = 32 ft./sec.^2.  NOTE: I have
> determined that by having the UNITS be exponential, there is the
> erroneous implication that the FORCES causing the acceleration must be
> increasing exponentially, too.

This is the first error you made in this essay so far. You are right,
the implication that you drew is erroneous. There is no such implication
intended, and if you drew it, then that's your fault. It is simply not
the case that a unit to a power implies anything about exponential
growth in anything.

> I strongly suspect that the error in
> the UNITS, which should have simply said:  “…per second EACH second”

This is the second mistake you've made, in that per second squared MEANS
per second per second. (Per and each mean the same thing, one in Latin
and the other in English).

> is the reason that Einstein erred by having his SR equation, E = mc^2,
> be exponential.

This is the third mistake. E=mc^2 implies no exponential growth of
anything. You will recall that c is a constant, and so c^2 is another
constant. You'll notice that the factor 4pi is also a constant, which
happens to be equal to pi*(2)^2, and yet 4pi is not to be taken as
exponential in anything.

> I’ve easily invalidated the latter for violating the
> Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass by getting OUT more energy than
> the uniform force required to accelerate the mass has put IN—for any
> referenced total time for the action of the force.

This is the fourth mistake. Multiplying a uniform force by the total
time for the action of the force doesn't tell you anything about energy.
Multiplying a uniform force by the total DISTANCE for the action of the
force does tell you something about the contribution to the energy. This
is sometimes called the work-energy theorem, and it is easily derived
from Newton's 2nd law that you quoted above.

> My additional
> invalidation of SR is my determining that the Michelson-Morley
> experiment lacked a CONTROL or unchanging light course.

These are your fifth and sixth mistakes. Fifth, an interferometer
experiment does not need a control BY DESIGN. Sixth, if the
Michelson-Morley experiment had NEVER BEEN DONE, relativity would remain
validated, because it has been validated by literally dozens of
different experiments in different conditions, testing different
predictions of relativity. Removing any one of the experiments from that
mix does NOT invalidate a theory. The ONLY way to invalidate a theory is
to ADD a confirmed experiment with results that are specifically COUNTER
to a prediction of relativity. Let me reiterate this: REMOVING
experiments that support a theory does not invalidate a theory; ADDING
an experiment that counterindicates a theory is the ONLY way to
invalidate a theory.

> The latter,
> easy determination negates any rationale for there being Lorenz’s
> “beta factor” as the divisor in Einstein’s SR equation.

This is your seventh and eighth mistake. Seventh, you misspelled
"Lorentz". Eighth, Einstein derived the Lorentz "beta factor" from the
laws of electrodynamics in 1905, completely independent of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. Since the laws of electrodynamics had been
around and successfully tested since 1865, the derivation of the Lorentz
factor from them has nothing to do with the Michelson-Morley result.

>  My
> invalidating the latter negates Lorentz’s oft-referenced “rubber
> ruler” that is responsible for 100% of Einstein’s relativity, and for
> all of the space-time variance nonsense.

These are your ninth and tenth mistakes. Ninth, there is no "rubber
ruler" in relativity, and that attribution is a fabrication. Tenth, the
Lorentz factor has been validated in dozens of other experiments wholly
beside the Michelson-Morley experiment. As mentioned above, if you have
37 experiments that all agree with relativity, and you remove one of
those 37 experiments, you still have 36 experiments that indicate that
relativity is correct.

> 
> This writer has determined that Galileo’s idea about the acceleration
> due to gravity—that was also accepted by Sir Isaac Newton, and has
> been matter-of-factly accepted by most scientists up to the present day
> —is WRONG.

This is your eleventh mistake. The acceleration due to gravity is
measurable with a falling stone and a strobe light and a meter stick.
It is confirmed every fall semester and every spring semester by
freshman students by the hundreds who perform this measurement.

>  And this writer has determined that Newton’s second Law of
> Motion is critically vague, so much so, that such should be considered
> wrong, too.

This is your twelfth mistake. You have confused YOUR clear lack of
understanding of the law with vagueness in the law itself. If there is a
term that you do not understand, such as "quantum spin", but that tens
of thousands of other people do understand, the problem is not that the
term is vague. The problem is only that you do not know what it means.
The same thing is true for Newton's second law.

This points also to a thirteenth mistake which is only suspected, and
that has to do with your confusion between pound-force and pound-mass,
which are DISTINCT units in engineering (and hence in architecture).

> A final discovery of wrongness is: Newton’s Law of
> “Universal” Gravitation isn’t universal at all!  But I won’t elucidate
> on the latter, here, except to say that his equation for such Law
> needs a variable correction factor for all systems of attraction
> beyond the Earth and the Moon.

I won't call this an error, as you've not explained it. It is, however,
an empty claim until you demonstrate the truth of what you say.

I will point out, however, that F=mg is NOT, repeat NOT, Newton's law of
universal gravitation.

> 
> Most dictionaries define acceleration due to gravity: “An increase in
> the velocity of a body caused by the force of gravity, amounting to
> about 32.17 feet per second per second at or near sea level.”  For
> four centuries scientists have concerned themselves more with the
> numeric value of the distance that objects free fall in one second,
> than they have with the embarrassingly HUGE error in the total meaning
> of that definition!
> 
> Rates of fall-DISTANCE-increases are NOT the same as rates of VELOCITY
> increases!

That's true, but note that the statement defines it as an increase in
the velocity, amounting to 32.17 feet per second each second (where I
have simply substituted the English word "each" for one of the Latin
words "per", since they are synonymous). I think you do agree that the
rate of increase of velocity is 32.17 feet per second each second. That
is, in each second, the velocity increases by 32.17 feet per second.
Near sea level, that is.

> The AVERAGE velocity in the first second of fall is 16.087 feet per
> second.
> That’s why the distance of fall is 16.087 feet in second
> one.  The object’s initial velocity is ZERO and its second one
> velocity is 32.174 feet per second.  The force of gravity can get all
> dense and compact falling objects up to the “numerical” acceleration
> in just one second.  If such velocity value is taken as a NEW frame-of-
> reference, then after another second, the force of gravity will
> increase the velocity ANOTHER 32.174 feet per second, for a total
> velocity at the end of second two of 64.348 feet per second.
> Therefore, the CORRECT definition of the acceleration of gravity is: g
> = 32.174 feet per second EACH second!

This is your fourteenth mistake, in that you believe that by
substituting the synonym "each" for "per", you have changed the meaning
of anything. "32.174 feet per second per second" and "32.174 feet per
second each second" mean exactly the same thing, because "each" and
"per" are synonyms.

> Einsteiniacs, and in
> particular, myopic, physics PhDs who think that they can refute my
> CORRECT definition, above, are invited to do so!

Done.

> 
> Newton’s Second Law of Motion is WRONG—because such isn’t clear
> whether it is intended to apply to single impulse forces, or to
> continuously applied forces, or to both.

It is neither. It is the NET TOTAL (vector sum) of forces of both
descriptions. This is your fifteenth mistake. The fact that it isn't
clear to you is simply because you are using miserably poor reference
material, rather than a physics textbook.

> The extended definition of
> that law: An outside force acting on a body causes the body to
> accelerate in the direction of the force; the acceleration is directly
> proportional to the force, and inversely proportional to the mass of
> the body.
> 
> One-time, single force applications are INCAPABLE of causing
> accelerations of anything!

This is your sixteenth mistake. Recall that ANY change in velocity over
some interval of time is an acceleration. It does not need to be a
constant acceleration. ANY change in velocity over some interval of time
is an acceleration.

A golf club hitting a golf ball on the tee CLEARLY changes the ball's
velocity over some short interval of time. This therefore is an observed
acceleration.

> What those cause is: a momentary
> acceleration-of-the-acceleration, followed by a uniform (or
> decreasing, in air) velocity!  An acceleration can only be caused by a
> CONTINUOUSLY applied force!  Since neither Newton nor Einstein seemed
> to know the difference; they are WRONG!
> 
> It is easy for Einsteiniacs to hide behind the complexity of
> Einstein’s theories.

This is your seventeenth mistake. There is nothing complex about
Einstein's theories, especially the special relativity you are concerned
about. Nor is there anything complex or vague about Newton's 2nd law.

> They willingly dumb-out to most attempts at
> being reasonable with them.  This independent scientist has disproved
> Michelson-Morley, Lorentz-FitzGerald, Coriolis, Galileo, Newton, and
> Einstein!

This is your eighteenth mistake. You have mistakenly called yourself a
scientist. But nothing you have done follows any of the metrics of
proper scientific methodology. In the past, you have acknowledged this
by admitting that what you do is better called New Science, rather than
science. I have no problem with you calling yourself a New Scientist
(though there may be a magazine that sues you for trademark violation),
but it's improper to call yourself a scientist.

> But my simple disproof of the four hundred year old
> “definition” of the acceleration due to gravity should convince any
> doubters: NoEinstein is the truth!

This is your nineteenth mistake, mistakenly calling your confusion about
the synonymy between "each" and "per" to be a disproof of something 400
years old, and which 7th graders have no difficulty understanding.

Not bad, John. Only 19 mistakes. I thought for a minute this was going
to be an easy 20-mistake post. Oh that's right -- there's that
unsubstantiated claim about Newton's law of universal gravitation having
to be modified numerically between here and the moon. There's still a
chance to get to 20 mistakes!

PD