Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
moron from Germany bent on trying to seem intelligent. Obviously, he
succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. His photograph is even shown on
a logo of the NSF. Billions of dollars are being wasted, annually, to
research and to prove his idea: Everything in the universe can be
understood just by varying space and time to finesse the observed data
to agree with the imagined equations of myopic scientists for how-the-
universe-works.
A century is a long time for us mortals to reach an understanding of
that man's "easy explanations". Small objects passing near to massive
objects are, indeed, influenced by varying gravitational forces
roughly corresponding to his warped space-time. But it isn't the
latter that causes the deflections, but the varying ether density near
the massive object.
If you science buffs recall: the Michelson-Morley experiment
"conclusively" ruled out the existence of ether. So that is it! If a
well-constructed experiment-replicated and retested hundreds and
hundreds of times all over the world-has negative results, then that
must prove something. Right? And it must surely prove something,
especially if two men with studious sounding names like: Lorentz and
FitzGerald, independently come up with a contraction factor Beta to
explain the negative results. Case closed! One explanation is enough
to satisfy four or five generations of our deepest thinking scientists
bravely hiding behind their bachelor's, master's, and/or doctor's
degrees in... physics. The 'advanced thinking' of that group staggers
the imagination, and inspires the Federal Government to keep funding,
and to fund again and again, their absurd research ideas for how the
universe works.
Why are their ideas absurd? Because space-time came into existence as
an erred concept because it was just assumed that the Michelson-Morley
experiment was a "failed" experiment. Actually such experiment
succeeded! It succeeded in showing: As long as light, that
alternately speeds up or slows down while racing along its course,
gets from the source to the target in the same amount of TIME, such
light course cannot affect the interference fringe pattern on the
target! But there are TWO light courses in M-M. So, suppose that the
other light course, similarly, speeds up or slows down at the
different azimuths of the experiment's rotation. As long as each
photon still circuits the particular course in the same amount of
TIME, then such light course won't affect the interference fringe
pattern, either. So, now you have two light courses that vary their
velocity continually as the apparatus is rotated, yet the pairs of
photons, in such, always reach the target in the exact same amount of
TIME.
How is the above possible? How can light speed up or slow down
continuous, and still get to the target in the same amount of TIME?
The answer: Not only do the photons that are being uniformly emitted
from the source speed up or slow down, but the ENTIRE apparatus speeds
up or slows down the exact same amount, corresponding to the
particular azimuth of rotation relative to the Earth's velocity
vector. Think of this as if the photons are uniform velocity bullets
being fired above and parallel to the empty beds of flatcars on a
train traveling on a straight section of track. If the train is
traveling 40 mph, and the bullet is aimed in the direction that the
train is headed, then the emitted velocity of the bullet is increased
by the velocity of the train. If that same type bullet is fired
toward the back of the same train, its velocity will be reduced by 40
mph. Now, suppose, as in the first case, that a bullet is racing
toward a target near the front of the train and has its velocity
increased by 40 mph. But, VERY importantly, the target is also moving
away from the gun at 40 mph! So, the bullet will get to the target in
the exact same amount of TIME regardless of whether the train is
traveling 40 mph or 80 mph, or any velocity in between or beyond! Any
change in the velocity of the train will affect both the gun and the
target (mirrors, telescope, etc.) in exactly the same way!
Interference only measures the simultaneousness of the arrival of the
light at the target. It says nothing about either the 'distance' that
the light has traveled or about the 'velocity' the light traveled in
getting there. The Michelson-Morley interferometer was a swell
instrument for measuring minute physical changes in distances, but it
was incapable of measuring velocity at all! How can that be? Because
such experiment lacked a CONTROL! It had two light courses mounted on
the same plane surface of polished stone, that continually vary in
velocity and in distance traveled as the interferometer is rotated.
Yet both light courses (i.e., the pairs of photons in the race) will
always get to the target in the same amount of TIME.
To measure velocity changes via interference it is necessary to have
one light course vary with velocity, and to compare such to a CONTROL
light course that doesn't change in any way! That is what my own
unique Interferometer Type 1 does. And it easily detects Earth's
movement in the Cosmos. The latter is something that Einstein said
would be impossible to detect, because of M-M.
By lacking a CONTROL, the Michelson-Morley experiment was, quite
simply, wrongly DESIGNED. So, no lame explanation of Lorentz and
FitzGerald that: "All matter contracts in the direction of motion, and
just the right amount to always get the light to the target in the
same amount of time." was needed. But if their equation had been
needed consider this, mathematicians: The contraction factor Beta,
when plotted for varying velocities, forms a curve similar to water
flowing toward, then over a waterfall. Because water begins speeding
up near the chasm, the surface of it starts gradually sloping down.
The factor Beta starts turning the lip of the chasm at a velocity of
light about 90% of c. Einstein's defense of many arguments against
him was to say: "The effect of mass (or time) changes don't become
evident until near velocity c."
If the latter statement was true, then how could the factor Beta-that
doesn't vary linearly- compensate for light velocity effects that DO
vary linearly, and only vary LINEARLY? To explain: If the light
velocity due to Earth's movement increases a hypothetical 1% at a
particular orientation, then the number of phase shifts in the light
in M-M that reach the target must increase 1%, too. At another time,
if the hypothetical accrued velocity increase due to Earth's rotation
becomes 1.1%, then the total phase shifts must increase to a total
accrued value of 1.1% in the number of phase shifts visible at the
target. If the values were: 1.2% velocity increase, such would
correspond to a 1.2% phase shift increase; 1.3% would 1.3%, etc.,
etc. If one plots the slope of the variation of the velocity,
compared to the variation in the phase shifts that would result, you
would draw a straight line that is at a 45 degree angle from zero all
the way to infinity. So, the equation for Beta of those 'esteemed'
scientists, that plots similar to a waterfall curve, could never
compensate for something that is varying LINEARLY.
Oh. And for all you non engineers out there, velocity, if it could
compress anything [it doesn't] would have to cause a UNIFORM
compression deformation of every different material in the universe
and regardless of the materials' uniformity of cross section. Neither
Lorentz, FitzGerald, nor Einstein ever took a university course in
Strength of Materials. If Einstein, in particular, had done so, he
would have known that all materials will rebound elastically when
compressed. So, if Einstein's special relativity equation measures E
at any uniform velocity up to c, there will be no "locked in"
compression-because if there were a compression due to velocity alone
[there isn't], such compression would be released in the elastic
rebounds of the materials! Velocity cannot create extra mass, nor
slow time beyond the effect of banging into the ether that pervades
our universe. ETHER explains every observation in nature that has
formerly used the Einstein CRUTCH to try to explain...
Lastly, Einstein got his idea for his special relativity equation from
the 1830 KE equation of Coriolis. Such requires that gravity,
somehow, impart a greater energy each and every second than it
imparted in the previous second-which is impossible. Why? Because
gravity would then have to have some mechanism to detect the velocity
of every falling object so that it can impart just the right amount of
energy to such to MATCH the equation. Since all of the research
leading to Einstein's theories began with observations of the
impacting effects of falling objects, then by my having disproved
Coriolis, I also have disproved Einstein and all of the head-in-a-
cloud researchers who in any way continue to honor that man.
Now that Einstein has been adequately put to rest, those who have
recreationally argued the subtitles of his explanations will need to
find more fruitful subjects. If the brain power that has been largely
wasted in arguing about Einstein could be redirected to more useful
purposes, there are few problems facing mankind that can't be solved.
May many of you, out there, begin doing just that!
Respectfully submitted (for you too, PD!),
NoEinstein
__________
Des
Hey dude, even without M-M. Einstein would have discovered
SR. It's a result mostly to make consistency of Maxwell's
equations and Galelian relativity. To make both compatible.
SR is cooked up.
Well. Relativistic quantum field theory makes us of SR
concept and predicted dozens of particles before they
were discovered right down to the masses.. Also all
equations of the Standard Model uses SR. Not only
that but particle accelerations make use of SR concept
to operate. So how can SR be wrong dude. Think of
it. Use some common sense.
des
Jeckyl
news:1185793943.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>A century is a long time for the world to be duped by a long-hair
> moron from Germany bent on trying to seem intelligent.
And now you're trying to do the same thing.
Sam Wormley
Bet we put you to rest is a lot shorter time. :-o
harry
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1185793943.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> moron from Germany bent on trying to seem intelligent. Obviously, he
> succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. His photograph is even shown on
> a logo of the NSF. Billions of dollars are being wasted, annually, to
> research and to prove his idea: Everything in the universe can be
> understood just by varying space and time to finesse the observed data
> to agree with the imagined equations of myopic scientists for how-the-
> universe-works.
>
> A century is a long time for us mortals to reach an understanding of
> that man's "easy explanations". Small objects passing near to massive
> objects are, indeed, influenced by varying gravitational forces
> roughly corresponding to his warped space-time. But it isn't the
> latter that causes the deflections, but the varying ether density near
> the massive object.
>
> If you science buffs recall: the Michelson-Morley experiment
> "conclusively" ruled out the existence of ether. So that is it!
Einstein disagreed - so who are you attacking?
[...]
> Oh. And for all you non engineers out there, velocity, if it could
> compress anything [it doesn't] would have to cause a UNIFORM
> compression deformation of every different material in the universe
> and regardless of the materials' uniformity of cross section. Neither
> Lorentz, FitzGerald, nor Einstein ever took a university course in
> Strength of Materials.
That's almost certainly wrong: Lorentz TAUGHT such stuff (and Einstein
studied his physics books).
I saw no nails but a lot of misconceptions. Just try to give a calculation
example, and see how it will be torn up by the wolves. ;-)
Harald
Uncle Al
>
> A century is a long time for the world to be duped by a long-hair
> moron from Germany bent on trying to seem intelligent.
1) GPS works
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
2) You are an idiot.
3) PSR J0737-3039A/B
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
4) You are an idiot
5) Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
6) You are an idiot
7) Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
8) You are an idiot.
9) Harvard Tower experiment
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment>
10) You are an idiot.
11) Falling light
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
12) You are an idiot
Marine artillery brings dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar
brawl.
You are an empirical idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse
[...]
All those words summarized:
"I don't understand, and I'm angry about it."
Tom Roberts
> [... nothing of substance]
Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered in the river (at his
request). So he has no coffin.
If you meant Einstein's THEORIES, then to demonstrate their inadequacy
you need to provide some sort of experimental refutation of his
theories, or some demonstration they are internally inconsistent. You
have done neither, you have merely vented stupidity and vituperation,
demonstrating you do not understand his theories at all.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered in the river (at his
> request). So he has no coffin.
>
> If you meant Einstein's THEORIES, then to demonstrate their inadequacy
> you need to provide some sort of experimental refutation of his
> theories, or some demonstration they are internally inconsistent. You
> have done neither, you have merely vented stupidity and vituperation,
> demonstrating you do not understand his theories at all.
None of the works credited to Einstein was of his original work.
<shrug>
However, it is truly amazing even with a meaningless post like this
one that I can still learn something from Professor Roberts. I learnt
that
** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
** The word 'vituperation' means 'abusive or venomous language used
to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will' according
to The Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Koobee Wublee
> 1) GPS works
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> Nature 425 374 (2003)http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
I can see that GPS works, and it works without using any GR or SR
crap.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
> 2) You are an idiot.
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> 3) PSR J0737-3039A/Bhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
> 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
There are about a dozen predictions to the orbital advance. Among
them, the grand daddy of them all by Paul Gerber is still among the
finest. <shrug>
> 4) You are an idiot
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> 5) Hafele-Keating Experiment
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
> <http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtmlhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating experiment proves the principle of relativity wrong and
thus the Lorentz transform. Since SR is merely an interpretation to
the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR is proven wrong by this
very experiment. <shrug>
> 6) You are an idiot
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
When are you going to figure out that the only way to accept a time
dilation is to turn your back on the principle of relativity. <shrug>
> 7) Experimental constraints on General Relativity
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...>
More PHD (pile higher and deeper) crap to sort through.
> 8) You are an idiot.
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> 9) Harvard Tower experiment
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment>
The explanation for this experiment is Newtonian!!! <shrug>
> 10) You are an idiot.
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> 11) Falling lighthttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
> Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Why did Professor Carlip escape Savain's gang of crackpots? Energy is
an observer dependent quantity. It is utterly absurd to allow an
observer dependent quantity to dictate the curvature of spacetime.
Correct me if I am wrong that we do not live in the same world as
'Lord of the Rings' or 'Henry Porter', excuse I meant 'Harry Potter'.
<shrug>
> 12) You are an idiot
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> Marine artillery brings dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar
> brawl.
Is it a prerequisite to be so overly creative to embrace the nonsense
of GR and SR?
> You are an empirical idiot.
This statement is too toxic even for yourself to consume. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
>
> I can see that GPS works, and it works without using any GR or SR
> crap.
>
Even my oldest currently in use GPS receiver combined with the
signal in space makes use of twelve (12) relativistic corrections,
Koobee Wublee. Want to know more?
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.htm#Relativity
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 30, 8:38 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > 1) GPS works
> > <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> > Nature 425 374 (2003)http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> > <http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
> > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
>
> I can see that GPS works, and it works without using any GR or SR
> crap.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
Poor stupid Koobee Wublee continues to think that Androcles has
anything worth saying much less anything worth continually
referencing. For reference, Androcles is confused by the concept of
"curl" from vector calculus, as evidenced by him thinking del x E is
the same as E.
>
> > 2) You are an idiot.
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> > 3) PSR J0737-3039A/Bhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417http://www.oakland.edu/physics/m...
> > 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
>
> There are about a dozen predictions to the orbital advance. Among
> them, the grand daddy of them all by Paul Gerber is still among the
> finest. <shrug>
As a rabid Einstein-hater, that makes perfect sense. Why advocate the
usage of general relativity's predictions which are pulled from first
principles when you could make use of some curve fitting the guy did
in the late 19th century?
>
> > 4) You are an idiot
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> > 5) Hafele-Keating Experiment
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
> > <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
> > <http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtmlhttp://arxiv.org/abs...
>
> Hafele-Keating experiment proves the principle of relativity wrong and
> thus the Lorentz transform. Since SR is merely an interpretation to
> the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR is proven wrong by this
> very experiment. <shrug>
1) You are stupid. Special relativity does not apply in Hafele-
Keating.
2) You are stupid. The Lorentz transformations are derived from
special relativity.
>
> > 6) You are an idiot
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> When are you going to figure out that the only way to accept a time
> dilation is to turn your back on the principle of relativity. <shrug>
You are stupid.
>
> > 7) Experimental constraints on General Relativity
> > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> > <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...>
>
> More PHD (pile higher and deeper) crap to sort through.
Poor baby can't be bothered to read. Reading is hard.
God forbid you learn something. Can't have that.
>
> > 8) You are an idiot.
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> > 9) Harvard Tower experiment
> > <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment>
>
> The explanation for this experiment is Newtonian!!! <shrug>
Too bad any insertion of light into Newtonian gravitation is ad-hoc at
best.
>
> > 10) You are an idiot.
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> > 11) Falling lighthttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
> > Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
>
> Why did Professor Carlip escape Savain's gang of crackpots? Energy is
> an observer dependent quantity. It is utterly absurd to allow an
> observer dependent quantity to dictate the curvature of spacetime.
> Correct me if I am wrong that we do not live in the same world as
> 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Henry Porter', excuse I meant 'Harry Potter'.
> <shrug>
...because Savain is a fucking fruitloop who only attacks the big
names because he is too stupid to actually read the literature.
>
> > 12) You are an idiot
>
> You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
>
> > Marine artillery brings dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar
> > brawl.
>
> Is it a prerequisite to be so overly creative to embrace the nonsense
> of GR and SR?
Study some quantum theory and say that again.
NoEinstein
Dear Tom:
If you will read my posting, again, it says: I have designed, built,
and successfully tested my Interferometer Type 1 that DETECTS Earth's
movement in the cosmos-something Einstein said would be impossible to
detect. And "nails in a coffin" is symbolic language for obliterating
his theories. I have also obliterated the KE equation of Coriolis
that Einstein used as the basis for his "E" equation. I measured KE
by impacting two metal clevis pins and recorded the audio spectrograph
of the free-falling smaller pin when dropped from increasing heights.
The two pins will remain in contact for the longest time when the
small pin's KE exactly matches the inertia of the larger pin-both of
known mass. Such amount of contact time completely dampens the ringing
sound of the small pin, telling when its KE is exactly equal to the
inertia of the larger pin. Such experiment verifies my formula for KE
and not Coriolis's. My Copyrighted technical paper: Force of
Persuasion, is available by emailing: science...@bellsouth.net
If Lorentz "taught" Strength of Materials, he didn't apply any of such
knowledge to his explanation of M-M. And his CURVING Beta factors at
varying velocities, surely could never compensate for velocity change
effects that are directly proportional to the apt phase shifts (a % of
change of one causes the same % of change of the other) that will plot
as a STRAIGHT 45 degree line from zero to infinity.
Lastly, you guys don't need to be arguing Einstein's math vs my math,
because I have disproved the two FOUNDATIONS of his theories: M-M and
Coriolis. And I have done those mathematically AND experimentally.
But my dozen plus technical articles will be sold, not bantered about
on this, or other WEB sites.
NoEinstein
__________
NoEinstein
Sam: Koobee Wublee will have "the last laugh"! Einstein's varying
space-time is "an" explanation, NOT the correct one. Varying ether
density is what causes time dilation. Ether is the MOTHER of all
science! - NoEinstein
Jeckyl
> On Jul 30, 9:37 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> NoEinstein wrote:
>> > [... nothing of substance]
>>
>> Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered in the river (at his
>> request). So he has no coffin.
>>
>> If you meant Einstein's THEORIES, then to demonstrate their inadequacy
>> you need to provide some sort of experimental refutation of his
>> theories, or some demonstration they are internally inconsistent. You
>> have done neither, you have merely vented stupidity and vituperation,
>> demonstrating you do not understand his theories at all.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Dear Tom:
>
> If you will read my posting, again, it says: I have designed, built,
> and successfully tested my Interferometer Type 1 that DETECTS Earth's
> movement in the cosmos
So says you .. got any proof?
> -something Einstein said would be impossible to
> detect. And "nails in a coffin" is symbolic language for obliterating
> his theories.
Its ever happened
[snip more wanking]
T.M. Sommers
>
> ** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
> through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
Presumably the Millstone River, which runs by Princeton. The
part right by Princeton is known as Lake Carnegie.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Tom Roberts
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> ** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
>> through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
>
> Presumably the Millstone River, which runs by Princeton. The part right
> by Princeton is known as Lake Carnegie.
No. This is mentioned in the last chapter or two of Isaacson's
biography. I don't have it handy to check, but I believe it was the
Delaware river. He specifically did not want any permanent place that
could become a shrine.
Koobee Wublee's revisionist history ("None of the works credited to
Einstein was of his original work.") is just plain wrong, as is his
claim that the GPS "works without using any GR or SR crap".
Both are simple issues of historical record, and he is wrong on both
counts. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>> ** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
>>> through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
>>
>> Presumably the Millstone River, which runs by Princeton. The part
>> right by Princeton is known as Lake Carnegie.
>
> No. This is mentioned in the last chapter or two of Isaacson's
> biography. I don't have it handy to check, but I believe it was the
> Delaware river.
Googling shows a few sites that say the Delaware, one that says
the Hudson, and many that say the river was "nearby" or "unknown"
or "undisclosed". I'm pretty sure I have heard that is was the
river in Princeton, specifically at the spot where the river runs
right by Route 27. But I may be mistaken.
I suspsect that the Delaware is named because it is the only
well-known river nearby.
Randy Poe
> On Jul 31, 3:08 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > I can see that GPS works, and it works without using any GR or SR
> > > crap.
>
> > Even my oldest currently in use GPS receiver combined with the
> > signal in space makes use of twelve (12) relativistic corrections,
> > Koobee Wublee. Want to know more?
> > http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.htm#Relativity
>
> Sam: Koobee Wublee will have "the last laugh"! Einstein's varying
> space-time is "an" explanation, NOT the correct one.
We don't have "correct" in science since the answer book
is closed to us. All we have access to is "better description
of Nature". So far GR is the best we have, and no doubt
a better one will come along. I hope I live to see it. But
so far, GR has been right on the money for every experiment.
The new theory will have to make the same predictions
for the same experiments where GR has been successful.
That's a point all the "relativity is wrong" crackpots always
miss.
- Randy
harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:s3Hri.30188$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> ** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
>>> through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
>>
>> Presumably the Millstone River, which runs by Princeton. The part right
>> by Princeton is known as Lake Carnegie.
>
> No. This is mentioned in the last chapter or two of Isaacson's biography.
> I don't have it handy to check, but I believe it was the Delaware river.
> He specifically did not want any permanent place that could become a
> shrine.
>
> Koobee Wublee's revisionist history ("None of the works credited to
> Einstein was of his original work.") is just plain wrong,
"None" is pretty strong and hard to believe, but equally so is "just plain
wrong". As I have read a lot about the different revisionist histories (much
of today's history happens to be revisionist, especially non-history books),
I wonder which of his works in particular is really "original" beyond
debate, according to you?
> as is his claim that the GPS "works without using any GR or SR crap".
Hmm... I think to have read that modern GPS does not need GR or SRT anymore
thanks to improved technology. This is also briefly mentioned in for example
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm :
" At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system
because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of
Universal Coordinated Time."
If so, then Koobee is technically right - although due to a technicality.
;-).
> Both are simple issues of historical record, and he is wrong on both
> counts. <shrug>
Please don't shrug when making simplistic claims. <smile>
Harald
Sam Wormley
>
> Hmm... I think to have read that modern GPS does not need GR or SRT anymore
> thanks to improved technology. This is also briefly mentioned in for example
> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm :
Harold... May I suggest a bit more reading. Even my oldest currently in use
GPS receiver combined with the signals from space makes use of twelve (12)
relativistic corrections,
harry
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:j_Hri.29629$Xa3.12909@attbi_s22...
> harry wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmm... I think to have read that modern GPS does not need GR or SRT
>> anymore thanks to improved technology. This is also briefly mentioned in
>> for example http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm :
>
> Harold... May I suggest a bit more reading. Even my oldest currently in
> use
> GPS receiver combined with the signals from space makes use of twelve
> (12)
> relativistic corrections,
Sam, I simply pointed out that the different "expert" infos disagree on this
(minor!) point - and improved technology is explicitly NOT about OLD
instruments.
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Many more links. :-) Great but... which one debunks Ashby's claim?
Thanks,
Harald
Sam Wormley
The http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm is pretty old--
Clock are now steered closer to 1 ns as opposed to 1 盜. It is true that
several relativistic factors are combined in frequency offsets, but that
doesn't negate the fact the needed to be accounted for.
GPS has matured considerable and *does now* serve an an excellent laboratory
for relativity as you will read in Ashby's more recent publications.
Best,
-Sam
jcon
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > [... nothing of substance]
>
> Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered in the river (at his
> request). So he has no coffin.
>
Darn! Beat me to it.
Of course, his brain was removed and stored in a mason
jars in a cider box and forgotten for over 20 years.
That's sort of a coffin, but I doubt they nailed it
shut.
-jc
jcon
http://www.findagrave.com/
is usually pretty reliable, and it simply says
"unknown river in New Jersey".
-jc
Androcles
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185908524.4...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 30, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: > NoEinstein wrote:
: > > [... nothing of substance]
: >
: > Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered in the river (at his
: > request). So he has no coffin.
: >
:
: Darn! Beat me to it.
:
: Of course, his brain was removed and stored in a mason
: jars in a cider box and forgotten for over 20 years.
: That's sort of a coffin, but I doubt they nailed it
: shut.
Someone opened it up and found he was lacking neuron density.
Since it had the same volume as any ordinary brain the balance
was made up of the usual wood density.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int8.html
Here's a standard 16-bit neuron with a 32-bit address bus:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/neuron1.gif
Albert only had an 8-bit processor, most of the dingbats
like Roberts run on 4-bit machines and naturally see Einstein
as a genius.
Koobee Wublee
> "jcon" <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, this is so true. Excellent post.
Koobee Wublee
wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > No. This is mentioned in the last chapter or two of Isaacson's biography.
> > I don't have it handy to check, but I believe it was the Delaware river.
> > He specifically did not want any permanent place that could become a
> > shrine.
>
> > Koobee Wublee's revisionist history ("None of the works credited to
> > Einstein was of his original work.") is just plain wrong,
>
> "None" is pretty strong and hard to believe, but equally so is "just plain
> wrong". As I have read a lot about the different revisionist histories (much
> of today's history happens to be revisionist, especially non-history books),
> I wonder which of his works in particular is really "original" beyond
> debate, according to you?
Professor Robert's opinion is apparently anything related to the
theories of relativity was entirely Einstein's original work. By
doing a few Google search, we find this to be totally untrue.
Although Poisson did imply non-classical Newtonian gravitational
potential that would result in antigravity, whatever Einstein did by
introducing the Cosmological constant was very much Einstein's only
original work. By introducing a negative mass density, Einstein was
correct to proclaim that was the biggest blunder in his lifetime.
Historically, the introduction of the Cosmological constant should be
Einstein's only blunder in his lifetime.
> > as is his claim that the GPS "works without using any GR or SR crap".
>
> Hmm... I think to have read that modern GPS does not need GR or SRT anymore
> thanks to improved technology. This is also briefly mentioned in for example
> http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm:
> " At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system
> because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of
> Universal Coordinated Time."
Professor Roberts is correct that GPS started with physicists as
consultants that introduced the nonsense of GR and SR into the design
of GPS. However, very quickly the engineers realized it is totally
unnecessary to employ SR and GR into GPS. This is not the first time
that engineers with tremendous burdens to make something work at a
reasonable cost outsmart the physicists with no real agenda in life
but making fairy tales out of misapplied mathematics in which GR and
SR are fine examples. Of course, there are always a few engineers
whose purpose in life is to create more BS paper works that feed the
bureaucracy such as David Smith who is in love with Einstein after
making so many jealous remarks on Einstein's women, Dr. Poe, Mr.
Waite, etc. <shrug>
> If so, then Koobee is technically right - although due to a technicality.
> ;-).
No, I am not just technically correct on GPS. I am thoroughly
correct. <shrug>
> > Both are simple issues of historical record, and he is wrong on both
> > counts. <shrug>
>
> Please don't shrug when making simplistic claims. <smile>
Professor's shrugging is contagious. He obviously works out quite a
bit as I do. So, please don't try to hold your breath that either of
us would dislocate our shoulders by shrugging. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Please do believe me that when I started to study the subjects of
relativity in high school and then college, I was so awed by
Einstein's achievements. I guess I was like everyone else. However,
within a few years, I quickly realize all those were just lies.
Unlike you, I do not lick up lies as truth. <shrug>
> That's a point all the "relativity is wrong" crackpots always
> miss.
I hope one day you will live to see relativists have been crackpots
all along.
Eric Gisse
[...]
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf
Page 18.
"The L-band SPS ranging signal is contained within a 2.046 MHz band
centered about L1. The
carrier frequency for the L1 signal is coherently derived from a
frequency source within the
satellite. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
observer on the ground -- is
1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic effects, the output
frequency of the satellite's frequency
standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite
-- is 10.23 MHz offset by a
Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz. This frequency
offset results in an output of
10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to obtain the
appropriate carrier modulation
signal (1.022999999543 MHz). The same output frequency source is also
used to generate the
nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz."
[...]
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185927239.2...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Roberts behaves just like Michael Palin with the parrot playing the part,
physically, of Einstein's relativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s
Stephen Hawking on black holes:
"The equation is so beautiful it just has to be right!"
Michael Palin: "lovely plumage"
Yesterday I had to go to London (sigh) for a med check-up (ugh) and
was forced to listen to the radio in the car with a phone-in talk show on
the air (groan). It was not my car...
Anyway, the highlight was some prat trying to sell the idea of god and
quoting Einstein as if that were the final word on the matter. "But it was
Einstein that said...". The talk show host pissed all over him and stated
that Einstein like to wind people up to get them thinking.
While I was waiting at the hospital for the return trip, also waiting for
her ride there was a young woman of dubious intellect and her skirts
trapped in the crack of her arse loudly proclaiming "I'm not mental.
You think I am".
http://xkcd.com/202/
http://xkcd.com/258/
Bug report:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
The nasty thing about bugs and theories is that they breed into monster
epidemics. Roberts is infected and needs to be in quarantine. If you
continue to prod he'll sneeze even more.
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Proof? How about the fact that your couch-potato-worthy behind
presses on the chair while you compose your one line replies. Have you
ever tried drawing an Einstein warped space-time grid around your
diapered bottom? If you have, then see if you can accelerate that
diapered flesh into the chair without moving. Einstein says that
gravity is "simply" the accelerating of a mass along its own unique
world line. If you are sitting in that chair, how can you be
accelerating along the world line that continues to the center of the
Earth? Space-time closely approximates the effects of gravity ONLY
for objects that never come to rest, one upon the other. If Einstein
can't explain gravity ON Earth, what thinking man would have ever give
him the "time of day". - NoEinstein
NoEinstein
Einstein insisted that all observers should record events the same.
Actually, only the myopic believers in 'that man' record things the
same--WRONG! - NoEinstein
Jeckyl
If you are sitting in an accelerating car, you are also accelerating, but
you don't move relative to the car seat. But you do feel your back pressed
against the back of the seat .. just like you feel gravity.
Jeckyl
> Einstein insisted that all observers should record events the same.
Did he .. when? What events?
> Actually, only the myopic believers in 'that man' record things the
> same--WRONG! - NoEinstein
Care to explain what you mean by that?
Don Stockbauer
****************
You mean......that when they nailed his coffin
shut.....they.....DIDN'T PUT IN ALL THE NAILS AND THEY HAD TO DID HIM
UP THE OTHER DAY AND DRIVE IN THE REMAINING ONES SO THAT HIS COFFIN
LID WOODEN COME OPEN FROM HIM HEARING ALL THIS INANE "DIALOG" AND HIM
SPINNING AT 50,000 RPM?
Wonders never cease.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Part of me hopes that they don't seal the mason jar. After physicians
verify that the contents aren't a silicone brain look-alike--planted
there by Einstein before his death--maybe someone can clone the man.
I would enjoy arguing him down, face to face!
Most of Einstein's papers were written in German, so he could hire the
smartest translators--back to English--to make him seem smarter.
'His' writing style varies from paragraph to paragraph, chapter to
chapter (Note: For Einstein a chapter was about two pages.)
Einstein doesn't need a shrine in his honor when he has a magazine
like TIME that keeps putting his mug on the cover; the National
Science Foundation that uses him for their poster boy; and the
Guggenheim Museum that devotes huge displays to honoring that man's
life and the "contributions" he made to the world of science. But his
greatest contribution was in doing his aches-to-aches, and dust-to-
dust bit. If only he could have done 'that' in 1904... - NoEinstein
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course you do (feel pressure on your back in an accelerating car)!
But traveling along a 'world line' perpendicular to the Earth can't do
it! Without MOVEMENT, there is NO 'acceleration' in space-time! The
pressure you feel on your back in an accelerating car is actually due
to your body being impacted by the ether in front of you. The harder
you impact it, the greater the pressure on you back that you feel.
Never learned 'that' in Ivory-Tower physics, did you! - NoEinstein
NoEinstein
If you can't 'pound' the substance (of my post), you will just
'pound'... the table. Tish, tish... - NoEinstein
Sam Wormley
>
> Please do believe me that when I started to study the subjects of
> relativity in high school and then college, I was so awed by
> Einstein's achievements. I guess I was like everyone else. However,
> within a few years, I quickly realize all those were just lies.
Actually not lies at all...
Poincaré & Einstein
Ref: "EINSTEIN 1905", John S. Rigden, Harvard University Press (2005)
In his 1902 book "La Science et l'Hypothèse", the
mathematical physicist Henri Poincaré identified three
fundamental yet unresolved problems [in physics].
One problem concerned the mysterious way ultraviolet
light ejects electrons from the surface of a metal;
the second problem was the zig-zagging perpetual motion
of pollen particles suspended in a liquid;
the third problem was the failure of experiments to
detect Earth's motion through the aether.
In 1904, Einstein read Poincaré's book. He had also been
thinking about these problems, independently of Poincaré.
For Einstein, they were clearly part of God's thoughts.
One year later, in 1905, he solved all three.
_______________________
Ref: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/2/1
Adapted from "Five papers that shook the world"
by Matthew Chalmers
January 2005
Most physicists would be happy to make one discovery that
is important enough to be taught to future generations of
physics students. Only a very small number manage this in
their lifetime, and even fewer make two appearances in
the textbooks.
But Einstein was different. In little more than eight
months in 1905 he completed five papers that would change
the world for ever. Spanning three quite distinct topics
- relativity, the photoelectric effect and Brownian
motion - Einstein overturned our view of space and time,
showed that it is insufficient to describe light purely
as a wave, and laid the foundations for the discovery of
atoms.
Genius at work
Perhaps even more remarkably, Einstein's 1905 papers were
based neither on hard experimental evidence nor
sophisticated mathematics. Instead, he presented elegant
arguments and conclusions based on physical intuition.
"Einstein's work stands out not because it was difficult
but because nobody at that time had been thinking the way
he did," says Gerard 't Hooft of the University of
Utrecht, who shared the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics for
his work in quantum theory.
"Dirac, Fermi, Feynman and others also made multiple
contributions to physics, but Einstein made the world
realize, for the first time, that pure thought can change
our understanding of nature."
And just in case the enormity of Einstein's achievement
is in any doubt, we have to remember that he did all of
this in his "spare time".
Statistical revelations
In 1905 Einstein was married with a one-year-old son and
working as a patent examiner in Bern in Switzerland. His
passion was physics, but he had been unable to find an
academic position after graduating from the ETH in Zurich
in 1900.
Nevertheless, he had managed to publish five papers in
the leading German journal Annalen der Physik between
1900 and 1904, and had also submitted an unsolicited
thesis on molecular forces to the University of Zurich,
which was rejected.
Most of these early papers were concerned with the
reality of atoms and molecules, something that was far
from certain at the time. But on 17 March in 1905 - three
days after his 26th birthday - Einstein submitted a paper
titled "A heuristic point of view concerning the
production and transformation of light" to Annalen der
Physik.
Einstein suggested that, from a thermodynamic
perspective, light can be described as if it consists of
independent quanta of energy (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17
132-148).
This hypothesis, which had been tentatively proposed by
Max Planck a few years earlier, directly challenged the
deeply ingrained wave picture of light. However, Einstein
was able to use the idea to explain certain puzzles about
the way that light or other electromagnetic radiation
ejected electrons from a metal via the photoelectric
effect.
Maxwell's electrodynamics could not, for example, explain
why the energy of the ejected photoelectrons depended
only on the frequency of the incident light and not on
the intensity. However, this phenomenon was easy to
understand if light of a certain frequency actually
consisted of discrete packets or photons all with the
same energy.
Einstein would go on to receive the 1921 Nobel Prize for
Physics for this work, although the official citation
stated that the prize was also awarded "for his services
to theoretical physics".
"The arguments Einstein used in the photoelectric and
subsequent radiation theory are staggering in their
boldness and beauty," says Frank Wilczek, a theorist at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who shared the
2004 Nobel Prize for Physics.
"He put forward revolutionary ideas that both inspired
decisive experimental work and helped launch quantum
theory." Although not fully appreciated at the time,
Einstein's work on the quantum nature of light was the
first step towards establishing the wave-particle duality
of quantum particles.
On 30 April, one month before his paper on the
photoelectric effect appeared in print, Einstein
completed his second 1905 paper, in which he showed how
to calculate Avogadro's number and the size of molecules
by studying their motion in a solution.
This article was accepted as a doctoral thesis by the
University of Zurich in July, and published in a slightly
altered form in Annalen der Physik in January 1906.
Despite often being obscured by the fame of his papers on
special relativity and the photoelectric effect,
Einstein's thesis on molecular dimensions became one of
his most quoted works.
Indeed, it was his preoccupation with statistical
mechanics that formed the basis of several of his
breakthroughs, including the idea that light was
quantized.
After finishing a doctoral thesis, most physicists would
be either celebrating or sleeping. But just 11 days later
Einstein sent another paper to Annalen der Physik, this
time on the subject of Brownian motion.
In this paper, "On the movement of small particles
suspended in stationary liquids required by the
molecular-kinetic theory of heat", Einstein combined
kinetic theory and classical hydrodynamics to derive an
equation that showed that the displacement of Brownian
particles varies as the square root of time (Ann. Phys.,
Lpz 17 549-560).
This was confirmed experimentally by Jean Perrin three
years later, proving once and for all that atoms do
exist. In fact, Einstein extended his theory of Brownian
motion in an additional paper that he sent to the journal
on 19 December, although this was not published until
February 1906.
A special discovery
Shortly after finishing his paper on Brownian motion
Einstein had an idea about synchronizing clocks that were
spatially separated.
_______________________
Adapted from "The Mechanical Universe"
Episode 43: Velocity and Time
In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say
formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of
wire and a bar magnet...
F = qE + qv x B
Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet
produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly
holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil
also produced an electric current in the coil.
But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two
cases were distinct independent phenomena that had
completely different explanations.
When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've
just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are
the same thing".
So it was this little experiment that was really the
start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
motion of the earth through the aether.
With this simple little phenomenon, that of course
everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert
Einstein.
This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his
fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).
In the 200 or so years before 1905, physics had been
built on Newton's laws of motion, which were known to
hold equally well in stationary reference frames and in
frames moving at a constant velocity in a straight line.
Provided the correct "Galilean" rules were applied, one
could therefore transform the laws of physics so that
they did not depend on the frame of reference.
However, the theory of electrodynamics developed by
Maxwell in the late 19th century posed a fundamental
problem to this "principle of relativity" because it
suggested that electromagnetic waves always travel at the
same speed.
Either electrodynamics was wrong or there had to be some
kind of stationary "ether" through which the waves could
propagate.
_______________________
I just want to read to you the first two paragraphs of
Einsteins 4th paper...
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually
understood at the present time--when applied to moving
bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.
Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action
of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one
or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the
magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric
field with a certain definite energy, producing a current
at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in
motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming
equality of relative motion in the two cases
discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the
former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1)
the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold
good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which
will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'')
to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2)
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a
simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary
bodies.
The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove
to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary
space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...
_______________________
True to style, Einstein
swept away the concept of the ether (which, in any case,
had not been detected experimentally) in one audacious
step. He postulated that no matter how fast you are
moving, light will always appear to travel at the same
velocity: the speed of light is a fundamental constant of
nature that cannot be exceeded.
Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics
are the identical in all "inertial" (i.e.
non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a completely new
theory of motion that revealed Newtonian mechanics to be
an approximation that only holds at low, everyday
speeds.
The theory later became known as the special theory of
relativity - special because it applies only to
non-accelerating frames - and led to the realization that
space and time are intimately linked to one another.
In order that the two postulates of special relativity
are respected, strange things have to happen to space and
time, which, unbeknown to Einstein, had been predicted by
Lorentz and others the previous year.
For instance, the length of an object becomes shorter
when it travels at a constant velocity, and a moving
clock runs slower than a stationary clock.
Effects like these have been verified in countless
experiments over the last 100 years, but in 1905 the most
famous prediction of Einstein's theory was still to come.
After a short family holiday in Serbia, Einstein
submitted his fifth and final paper of 1905 on 27
September. Just three pages long and titled "Does the
inertia of a body depend on its energy content?", this
paper presented an "afterthought" on the consequences of
special relativity, which culminated in a simple equation
that is now known as E = mc^2 (Ann. Phys., Lpz 18
639-641).
This equation, which was to become the most famous in all
of science, was the icing on the cake.
"The special theory of relativity, culminating in the
prediction that mass and energy can be converted into one
another, is one of the greatest achievements in physics -
or anything else for that matter," says Wilczek.
"Einstein's work on Brownian motion would have merited a
sound Nobel prize, the photoelectric effect a strong
Nobel prize, but special relativity and E = mc^2 were
worth a super-strong Nobel prize."
However, while not doubting the scale of Einstein's
achievements, many physicists also think that his 1905
discoveries would have eventually been made by others.
"If Einstein had not lived, people would have stumbled on
for a number of years, maybe a decade or so, before
getting a clear conception of special relativity," says
Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton.
't Hooft agrees. "The more natural course of events would
have been that Einstein's 1905 discoveries were made by
different people, not by one and the same person," he
says. However, most think that it would have taken much
longer - perhaps a few decades - for Einstein's general
theory of relativity to emerge.
Indeed, Wilczek points out that one consequence of
general relativity being so far ahead of its time was
that the subject languished for many years afterwards.
The aftermath
By the end of 1905 Einstein was starting to make a name
for himself in the physics community, with Planck and
Philipp Lenard - who won the Nobel prize that year -
among his most famous supporters. Indeed, Planck was a
member of the editorial board of Annalen der Physik at
the time.
Einstein was finally given the title of Herr Doktor from
the University of Zurich in January 1906, but he remained
at the patent office for a further two and a half years
before taking up his first academic position at Zurich.
By this time his statistical interpretation of Brownian
motion and his bold postulates of special relativity were
becoming part of the fabric of physics, although it would
take several more years for his paper on light quanta to
gain wide acceptance.
1905 was undoubtedly a great year for physics, and for
Einstein. "You have to go back to quasi-mythical figures
like Galileo or especially Newton to find good
analogues," says Wilczek.
"The closest in modern times might be Dirac, who, if
magnetic monopoles had been discovered, would have given
Einstein some real competition!" But we should not forget
that 1905 was just the beginning of Einstein's legacy.
His crowning achievement - the general theory of
relativity - was still to come.
Sam Wormley
> Einstein insisted that all observers should record events the same.
> Actually, only the myopic believers in 'that man' record things the
> same--WRONG! - NoEinstein
>
Einstein made it clear that different observers would *not* record
the same events. For your viewing pleasure lool at
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.
43. Velocity and Time
Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics,
resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time.
Sam Wormley
>
> Part of me hopes that they don't seal the mason jar. After physicians
> verify that the contents aren't a silicone brain look-alike--planted
> there by Einstein before his death--maybe someone can clone the man.
> I would enjoy arguing him down, face to face!
>
> Most of Einstein's papers were written in German, so he could hire the
> smartest translators--back to English--to make him seem smarter.
> 'His' writing style varies from paragraph to paragraph, chapter to
> chapter (Note: For Einstein a chapter was about two pages.)
>
> Einstein doesn't need a shrine in his honor when he has a magazine
> like TIME that keeps putting his mug on the cover; the National
> Science Foundation that uses him for their poster boy; and the
> Guggenheim Museum that devotes huge displays to honoring that man's
> life and the "contributions" he made to the world of science. But his
> greatest contribution was in doing his aches-to-aches, and dust-to-
> dust bit. If only he could have done 'that' in 1904... - NoEinstein
>
You've got to admit that his theories have out lived the man. If fact
there has never been a prediction of either special relativity or
general relativity that's been contradicted by an observation. Pretty
important contribution actually.
Koobee Wublee
Notice the spec had an error of '1.023MHz' in which it meant
'10.23MHz'. This error was not even bothered to be corrected. Why?
Hint --- obsolescence.
Where is that vital relativistic corrections that would translate to
large errors in positioning?
You, Mr. Hobba, and moortel seem to have the tendency of bringing
evidences against yourselves. Does actually reading and comprehending
the materials first ring any bell? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> "I don't understand, and I'm angry about it."
You got it all wrong. Try the following.
"I [Fat Gisse] don't understand, but I have to pretend to understand
because everyone else pretends to understand besides I am smarter than
the ones who do not understand.
"I [Fat Gisse] am angry at the ones who show me what I pretend to
understand is total garbage."
Sam Wormley
> Notice the spec had an error of '1.023MHz' in which it meant
> '10.23MHz'. This error was not even bothered to be corrected. Why?
> Hint --- obsolescence.
>
Best read these Koobee... Git yourself up to speed!
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Jeckyl
Space-time is 'moving'
> The
> pressure you feel on your back in an accelerating car is actually due
> to your body being impacted by the ether in front of you.
WTF? What ether?
> The harder
> you impact it, the greater the pressure on you back that you feel.
> Never learned 'that' in Ivory-Tower physics, did you! - NoEinstein
No .. we don't deal with fairy stories about magical ether.
Don Stockbauer
Yeppers, Sam. But people need something to fill their meaningless
lives with, thus the infinite debates her.
Of course, the enlightened world civilization of the future will go
through and delete all these posts to make way for teleporter parts
books.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Where is that vital relativistic corrections that would translate to
> large errors in positioning?
Relativistic errors are ~50,000 ns/day.
Light travels at ~1foot/ns.
Figure out the obvious. It isn't my problem if yet another retired
engineer doesn't "get" relativity or the effects of timing errors.
Your whining is confined to this newsgroup.
>
> You, Mr. Hobba, and moortel seem to have the tendency of bringing
> evidences against yourselves. Does actually reading and comprehending
> the materials first ring any bell? <shrug>
<shrug> is right
You don't care if you are right or wrong. If your amazing use of
confirmation bias finds something that agrees with you, somehow that
proves you are 100% correct. If someone else finds something that
explicitly disagrees with you [like, say, the actual GPS spec], hey
it's just a test of faith, or otherwise irrelevant to your belief
system.
Whatever is missing in your life can't be found here. Go hug your
grandkids or something, we can't fill that hole in your soul.
Koobee Wublee
Yup, just got myself to speed. The GPS spec that fat Gisse found was
indeed obsolete. The newer one found by you had the same ranging
equation on page 1-14 that is similar to the one found at Androcle's
website below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
You have lost as convicted by the same materials you have brought up.
The design of GPS does not need SR or GR. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where is that vital relativistic corrections that would translate to
> > large errors in positioning?
>
> Relativistic errors are ~50,000 ns/day.
>
> Light travels at ~1foot/ns.
>
> Figure out the obvious. It isn't my problem if yet another retired
> engineer doesn't "get" relativity or the effects of timing errors.
> Your whining is confined to this newsgroup.
That is nice, but where is that mentioned in the newer GPS spec below?
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
> > You, Mr. Hobba, and moortel seem to have the tendency of bringing
> > evidences against yourselves. Does actually reading and comprehending
> > the materials first ring any bell? <shrug>
>
> <shrug> is right
<shrug>
> You don't care if you are right or wrong.
Oh, yes, I do care if I am right or wrong. You obviously don't.
> If your amazing use of
> confirmation bias finds something that agrees with you, somehow that
> proves you are 100% correct. If someone else finds something that
> explicitly disagrees with you [like, say, the actual GPS spec], hey
> it's just a test of faith, or otherwise irrelevant to your belief
> system.
The GPS specification that Mr. Womanly found verifies what is found at
Androcle's website below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
> Whatever is missing in your life can't be found here. Go hug your
> grandkids or something, we can't fill that hole in your soul.
My grandkids are at least 15 years away. I am hoping at least 20. In
due time, I also hope to hug my grandkids. How about you, fat Gisse?
You need to get that BS degree fist.
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 1, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Where is that vital relativistic corrections that would translate to
> > > large errors in positioning?
>
> > Relativistic errors are ~50,000 ns/day.
>
> > Light travels at ~1foot/ns.
>
> > Figure out the obvious. It isn't my problem if yet another retired
> > engineer doesn't "get" relativity or the effects of timing errors.
> > Your whining is confined to this newsgroup.
>
> That is nice, but where is that mentioned in the newer GPS spec below?
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
Those are receiver specifications. They are irrelevant to the
discussion because the relativistic corrections are applied to the
clocks the GPS satellites carry so the receivers don't have to carry
one.
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
It would have been instructive for you to actually visit this page
because it contains the same pdf link I gave you.
>
> > > You, Mr. Hobba, and moortel seem to have the tendency of bringing
> > > evidences against yourselves. Does actually reading and comprehending
> > > the materials first ring any bell? <shrug>
>
> > <shrug> is right
>
> <shrug>
>
> > You don't care if you are right or wrong.
>
> Oh, yes, I do care if I am right or wrong. You obviously don't.
You do? Since when?
When was the last time you had the intellectual curiosity to go to the
library and crack open a book on relativity?
>
> > If your amazing use of
> > confirmation bias finds something that agrees with you, somehow that
> > proves you are 100% correct. If someone else finds something that
> > explicitly disagrees with you [like, say, the actual GPS spec], hey
> > it's just a test of faith, or otherwise irrelevant to your belief
> > system.
>
> The GPS specification that Mr. Womanly found verifies what is found at
> Androcle's website below.
Um, no. It does not.
Androcles, in his infinite capacity of non-understanding, is
referencing receiver information off a manufacturer's website. Why he
would do that, when the whole debate is about the satellites, is an
interesting question that I do not believe him cogent enough to
answer. Androcles is incapable of writing a complete sentence without
being insulting or otherwise stupid.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
Androcles continues to think that Faraday's law is E = -dB/dt. You
might want to source someone who actually ...um... knows what the fuck
he is talking about.
>
> > Whatever is missing in your life can't be found here. Go hug your
> > grandkids or something, we can't fill that hole in your soul.
>
> My grandkids are at least 15 years away. I am hoping at least 20. In
> due time, I also hope to hug my grandkids. How about you, fat Gisse?
Close enough. Hug your children, and leave us alone.
> You need to get that BS degree fist.
Spring.
Sam Wormley
>
> You have lost as convicted by the same materials you have brought up.
> The design of GPS does not need SR or GR. <shrug>
>
You cut your education too short, Koobee... But they say ignorance
is bliss.
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 1, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Where is that vital relativistic corrections that would translate to
>>> large errors in positioning?
>> Relativistic errors are ~50,000 ns/day.
>>
>> Light travels at ~1foot/ns.
>>
>> Figure out the obvious. It isn't my problem if yet another retired
>> engineer doesn't "get" relativity or the effects of timing errors.
>> Your whining is confined to this newsgroup.
>
> That is nice, but where is that mentioned in the newer GPS spec below?
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
>
I gave you the above references to sort out the 1.023 and
10.23 MHz. Koobee. Now here is were you read about relativity
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
NoEinstein
> On Jul 31, 9:12 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > >> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > >>> ** Einstein was cremated with his ashes scattered in the river
> > >>> through his will. Assuming this is true, what river?
>
> > >> Presumably the Millstone River, which runs by Princeton. The part
> > >> right by Princeton is known as Lake Carnegie.
>
> > > No. This is mentioned in the last chapter or two of Isaacson's
> > > biography. I don't have it handy to check, but I believe it was the
> > > Delaware river.
>
> > Googling shows a few sites that say the Delaware, one that says
> > the Hudson, and many that say the river was "nearby" or "unknown"
> > or "undisclosed". I'm pretty sure I have heard that is was the
> > river in Princeton, specifically at the spot where the river runs
> > right by Route 27. But I may be mistaken.
>
> > I suspsect that the Delaware is named because it is the only
> > well-known river nearby.
>
> http://www.findagrave.com/
> is usually pretty reliable, and it simply says
> "unknown river in New Jersey".
>
> -jc
>
>
>
> > --
> > Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since the guys who follow sci.physics.relativity, also, follow
sci.physics, I will mainly reply on the latter. I'll do that because
I have DISPROVED his theories of relativity by invalidating M-M. My
own research and experimentation drives the 'Last Nails in Einstein's
Coffin' (or seals the 'mason jar' on his would-have-been brain.)
Differences in the observations of the 'same event' caused by
differences in one's motion and/or location got 'explained' by
Einstein because he had HORRIBLE space visualization skills. He just
assumed that everyone else had those same problems... and would thus
benefit from his pre-school level rhetoric. Surveyors, engineers and
architects--who regularly deal with spatial relationships--don't have
need for relativity to "equalize" observations. Much can be learned
from viewing things in different ways! -- NoEinstein
Jeckyl
> Since the guys who follow sci.physics.relativity, also, follow
> sci.physics, I will mainly reply on the latter. I'll do that because
> I have DISPROVED his theories of relativity by invalidating M-M.
What a load of crap.
NoEinstein
>
> read more »
8/02/2007
Dear Sparring Partners: I am glad to read articles that Sam Wormley
was moved by. As in defending one's self from prosecution for some
crime, telling a story filled with as many bits and pieces of the
truth as possible can lend credibility to, and even disguise, the
errors (not always intentional 'lies'-just falsehoods) in the whole
story. The main errors I read in Sam's attachment were:
1. "That light never travels faster than velocity 'c'." If you will
read my 'headline' article, you should (if you only would) see that
light CAN speed up and still get to the target in the same amount of
TIME-because the target (or the intermediate mirrors) always speed up
(or slow down) the exact same amount at each particular component
(azimuth) of the velocity vector of the Earth. "Going in" M-M was
analyzed with the assumption that light can't exceed 'c'... Why didn't
anyone, before yours truly, at least "test" the idea that light speeds
up or slows down in the exact same way that sound does coming from a
moving train? The simple test is mathematical, and only requires the
writing of eight algebraic equations. The problem? Physicists, such
as with Lorentz and Einstein, have very poor space-visualization
aptitudes. They can't visualize what is happening with a moving
system well enough to begin to write an equation to explain it.
2. If one stares at turgid water, and notices that the litter on top
is getting kicked about, is it really difficult to concur that there
might be fish or other things in the water causing the movement?
Einstein was famous for his 'equations', but the man performed less
actual math than most middle schoolers have to do to pass 9th grade
algebra. Whatever the results of observations, Einstein was quick to
proclaim: "See, 'that' is what I predicted!" The biggest proof of
that 'tendency' of his was his SR equation. Einstein had absolutely
ZERO idea how much energy was in a unit of mass. He figured it was a
lot, because the caloric tests of heavier organic materials (like
coal) yielded more heat than, say, wood. But after that first atom
bomb test, Einstein said: "See, my predictions were correct!" (sic)
No man in the history of the world has had more other men willing to
shoe-horn the interpretation of observations in nature to agree with
him. Why did this happen? Because his "equations only" explanations
of things leave it up to others to figure WHAT the values of his
variables actually are. Everything Einstein 'predicted' was AFTER THE
FACT-never before! His 'prediction' of that 1919 solar eclipse's
effect on the reappearance of obscured stars, was actually just a
simple extrapolation of ACTUAL observations by an astronomer friend,
of the deviations of the returns of the moons of Jupiter. But
Einstein lied and claimed that his difficult GR equations made the
predictions.
3. James Clerk Maxwell has his 'name dropped', continually, to lend
credibility to this or that theory or statement by anyone. Is his
status justified? Maxwell was the man who suggested that A. A.
Michelson use his new interferometer design (It's NOT an invention,
because interference occurs accidentally in nature, too.) to try to
measure the slowing of the velocity of light by the assumed all-
pervasive ether in the Universe. Sounds like an astute
recommendation, does it not? Actually, it is one of the DUMBEST, off-
the-cuff suggestions ever to come from the mouth of a supposed
physicist! Guys, please 'imagine' for a moment: Light 'should be'
slowed by the ether out there. Right? And the faster the Earth moves
into the ether, the more the light should be slowed. Right? So, by
using interference to measure how much the light is slowed at various
azimuths it 'should' be possible to determine the velocity and the
direction of Earth's movement in the cosmos. Wonderful! But wait a
minute... Wasn't the REASON that the M-M experiment was performed to
measure the SLOWING cause by ether? But what about the SPEEDING UP of
light by shining it in the direction 180 degrees opposite to the
Earth's velocity vector? That is analogous to driving a boat down
stream-WITH the current. The former is like driving the boat UP
STREAM and AGAINST the current. What difference does it make? For
starters: the Lorentz-FitzGerald "contraction factor" Beta might (if
it could, but it doesn't) correct for the absence of observed phase
shifts in M-M at the target in the SUBTRACTIVE direction. But that
equation makes no provision for STRETCHING the length of the
experiment (or 'ruler') when the light is shining in the ADDITIVE
direction! Sort of kills their explanation, doesn't it! AND it
especially kills Maxwell as a "deep thinker" because: IF the ether in
the Universe WERE capable of SLOWING (or SPEEDING UP) the velocity of
light, then, the Earth would not exist! Why?! Because light from the
Sun would be slowed, more and more, in traveling toward the Earth, and
it would not have a chance to 'get here' at all!!
Sam, you like to read stuff written by those who support your God,
Einstein. But do you ENJOY reading that I have disproved him? Will
your HUGE ego-and those of the majority of the Einsteiniacs visiting
this post-allow you to accept the TRUTH? Probably not. Though I feel
sorry for you, I don't feel compelled to let your feelings about what
is 'reality' deter me from dethroning the man. It is said: "The
bigger they are, the harder they fall." But Einstein was such a small
man... that his aches fell into the river with little more than Brownian
motion.
NoEinstein
__________
Sam Wormley
Show me your experimental data please.
Koobee Wublee
> Show me your experimental data please.
I will be more specific. Show me the data about light bending in
twice the Newtonian prediction, and please don't present the nonsense
of Sir Eddington's 1919 expeditions.
Koobee Wublee
I am continuously learning. In doing so, I have seen the things that
you cannot see. That is the nonsense in both SR and GR. <shrug>
Oh, don't worry. I won't blame the nonsense on your idol Einstein.
Since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, he had
absolutely nothing to do with the nonsense in SR and GR. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
Einstein rings are a good start for verifications.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/32/
That light bends at twice the Newtonian prediction is a textbook
exercise, and has been known since day one.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-1998-12&page=node2.html
If you want data on lensing, weak lensing is rather interesting...
http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/joffre/weaklensing.html
But if you are going to be whiny and refuse to acknowledge what has
been known for decades, I suppose this will work:
http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/lrr/1998/12/article.xhtml
Read the page for an introduction to lensing because god knows you
need it, and read the references for actual data on lensing.
Androcles
8/02/2007
NoEinstein
Ok, so Wormsey is a fuckhead... <shrug>
There are lots like him -- Humpty Roberts, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dork
Van de local village idiot, Tusseladd ... not a mathematician among them and
every one a vicious troll.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
fleesow
> On Jul 30, 7:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > A century is a long time for the world to be duped by a long-hair
> > moron from Germany bent on trying to seem intelligent. Obviously, he
> > succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. His photograph is even shown on
> > a logo of the NSF. Billions of dollars are being wasted, annually, to
> > research and to prove his idea: Everything in the universe can be
> > understood just by varying space and time to finesse the observed data
> > to agree with the imagined equations of myopic scientists for how-the-
> > universe-works.
>
> > A century is a long time for us mortals to reach an understanding of
> > that man's "easy explanations". Small objects passing near to massive
> > objects are, indeed, influenced by varying gravitational forces
> > roughly corresponding to his warped space-time. But it isn't the
> > latter that causes the deflections, but the varying ether density near
> > the massive object.
>
> > If you science buffs recall: the Michelson-Morley experiment
> > "conclusively" ruled out the existence of ether. So that is it! If a
> > well-constructed experiment-replicated and retested hundreds and
> > hundreds of times all over the world-has negative results, then that
> > must prove something. Right? And it must surely prove something,
> > especially if two men with studious sounding names like: Lorentz and
> > FitzGerald, independently come up with a contraction factor Beta to
> > explain the negative results. Case closed! One explanation is enough
> > to satisfy four or five generations of our deepest thinking scientists
> > bravely hiding behind their bachelor's, master's, and/or doctor's
> > degrees in... physics. The 'advanced thinking' of that group staggers
> > the imagination, and inspires the Federal Government to keep funding,
> > and to fund again and again, their absurd research ideas for how the
> > universe works.
>
> > Why are their ideas absurd? Because space-time came into existence as
> > an erred concept because it was just assumed that the Michelson-Morley
> > experiment was a "failed" experiment. Actually such experiment
> > succeeded! It succeeded in showing: As long as light, that
> > alternately speeds up or slows down while racing along its course,
> > gets from the source to the target in the same amount of TIME, such
> > light course cannot affect the interference fringe pattern on the
> > target! But there are TWO light courses in M-M. So, suppose that the
> > other light course, similarly, speeds up or slows down at the
> > different azimuths of the experiment's rotation. As long as each
> > photon still circuits the particular course in the same amount of
> > TIME, then such light course won't affect the interference fringe
> > pattern, either. So, now you have two light courses that vary their
> > velocity continually as the apparatus is rotated, yet the pairs of
> > photons, in such, always reach the target in the exact same amount of
> > TIME.
>
> > How is the above possible? How can light speed up or slow down
> > continuous, and still get to the target in the same amount of TIME?
> > The answer: Not only do the photons that are being uniformly emitted
> > from the source speed up or slow down, but the ENTIRE apparatus speeds
> > up or slows down the exact same amount, corresponding to the
> > particular azimuth of rotation relative to the Earth's velocity
> > vector. Think of this as if the photons are uniform velocity bullets
> > being fired above and parallel to the empty beds of flatcars on a
> > train traveling on a straight section of track. If the train is
> > traveling 40 mph, and the bullet is aimed in the direction that the
> > train is headed, then the emitted velocity of the bullet is increased
> > by the velocity of the train. If that same type bullet is fired
> > toward the back of the same train, its velocity will be reduced by 40
> > mph. Now, suppose, as in the first case, that a bullet is racing
> > toward a target near the front of the train and has its velocity
> > increased by 40 mph. But, VERY importantly, the target is also moving
> > away from the gun at 40 mph! So, the bullet will get to the target in
> > the exact same amount of TIME regardless of whether the train is
> > traveling 40 mph or 80 mph, or any velocity in between or beyond! Any
> > change in the velocity of the train will affect both the gun and the
> > target (mirrors, telescope, etc.) in exactly the same way!
>
> > Interference only measures the simultaneousness of the arrival of the
> > light at the target. It says nothing about either the 'distance' that
> > the light has traveled or about the 'velocity' the light traveled in
> > getting there. The Michelson-Morley interferometer was a swell
> > instrument for measuring minute physical changes in distances, but it
> > was incapable of measuring velocity at all! How can that be? Because
> > such experiment lacked a CONTROL! It had two light courses mounted on
> > the same plane surface of polished stone, that continually vary in
> > velocity and in distance traveled as the interferometer is rotated.
> > Yet both light courses (i.e., the pairs of photons in the race) will
> > always get to the target in the same amount of TIME.
>
> > To measure velocity changes via interference it is necessary to have
> > one light course vary with velocity, and to compare such to a CONTROL
> > light course that doesn't change in any way! That is what my own
> > unique Interferometer Type 1 does. And it easily detects Earth's
> > movement in the Cosmos. The latter is something that Einstein said
> > would be impossible to detect, because of M-M.
>
> > By lacking a CONTROL, the Michelson-Morley experiment was, quite
> > simply, wrongly DESIGNED. So, no lame explanation of Lorentz and
> > FitzGerald that: "All matter contracts in the direction of motion, and
> > just the right amount to always get the light to the target in the
> > same amount of time." was needed. But if their equation had been
> > needed consider this, mathematicians: The contraction factor Beta,
> > when plotted for varying velocities, forms a curve similar to water
> > flowing toward, then over a waterfall. Because water begins speeding
> > up near the chasm, the surface of it starts gradually sloping down.
> > The factor Beta starts turning the lip of the chasm at a velocity of
> > light about 90% of c. Einstein's defense of many arguments against
> > him was to say: "The effect of mass (or time) changes don't become
> > evident until near velocity c."
>
> > If the latter statement was true, then how could the factor Beta-that
> > doesn't vary linearly- compensate for light velocity effects that DO
> > vary linearly, and only vary LINEARLY? To explain: If the light
> > velocity due to Earth's movement increases a hypothetical 1% at a
> > particular orientation, then the number of phase shifts in the light
> > in M-M that reach the target must increase 1%, too. At another time,
> > if the hypothetical accrued velocity increase due to Earth's rotation
> > becomes 1.1%, then the total phase shifts must increase to a total
> > accrued value of 1.1% in the number of phase shifts visible at the
> > target. If the values were: 1.2% velocity increase, such would
> > correspond to a 1.2% phase shift increase; 1.3% would 1.3%, etc.,
> > etc. If one plots the slope of the variation of the velocity,
> > compared to the variation in the phase shifts that would result, you
> > would draw a straight line that is at a 45 degree angle from zero all
> > the way to infinity. So, the equation for Beta of those 'esteemed'
> > scientists, that plots similar to a waterfall curve, could never
> > compensate for something that is varying LINEARLY.
>
> > Oh. And for all you non engineers out there, velocity, if it could
> > compress anything [it doesn't] would have to cause a UNIFORM
> > compression deformation of every different material in the universe
> > and regardless of the materials' uniformity of cross section. Neither
> > Lorentz, FitzGerald, nor Einstein ever took a university course in
> > Strength of Materials. If Einstein, in particular, had done so, he
> > would have known that all materials will rebound elastically when
> > compressed. So, if Einstein's special relativity equation measures E
> > at any uniform velocity up to c, there will be no "locked in"
> > compression-because if there were a compression due to velocity alone
> > [there isn't], such compression would be released in the elastic
> > rebounds of the materials! Velocity cannot create extra mass, nor
> > slow time beyond the effect of banging into the ether that pervades
> > our universe. ETHER explains every observation in nature that has
> > formerly used the Einstein CRUTCH to try to explain...
>
> > Lastly, Einstein got his idea for his special relativity equation from
> > the 1830 KE equation of Coriolis. Such requires that gravity,
> > somehow, impart a greater energy each and every second than it
> > imparted in the previous second-which is impossible. Why? Because
> > gravity would then have to have some mechanism to detect the velocity
> > of every falling object so that it can impart just the right amount of
> > energy to such to MATCH the equation. Since all of the research
> > leading to Einstein's theories began with observations of the
> > impacting effects of falling objects, then by my having disproved
> > Coriolis, I also have disproved Einstein and all of the head-in-a-
> > cloud researchers who in any way continue to honor that man.
>
> > Now that Einstein has been adequately put to rest, those who have
> > recreationally argued the subtitles of his explanations will need to
> > find more fruitful subjects. If the brain power that has been largely
> > wasted in arguing about Einstein could be redirected to more useful
> > purposes, there are few problems facing mankind that can't be solved.
> > May many of you, out there, begin doing just that!
>
> > Respectfully submitted (for you too, PD!),
>
> > NoEinstein
> > __________
>
> Hey dude, even without M-M. Einstein would have discovered
> SR. It's a result mostly to make consistency of Maxwell's
> equations and Galelian relativity. To make both compatible.
> SR is cooked up.
>
> Well. Relativistic quantum field theory makes us of SR
> concept and predicted dozens of particles before they
> were discovered right down to the masses.. Also all
> equations of the Standard Model uses SR. Not only
> that but particle accelerations make use of SR concept
> to operate. So how can SR be wrong dude. Think of
> it. Use some common sense.
>
> des
Change is lasw of nature.
it is applicable to everyone including Einstein
fleesow
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 2, 9:14 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 6:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > Show me your experimental data please.
>
> > I will be more specific. Show me the data about light bending in
> > twice the Newtonian prediction, and please don't present the nonsense
> > of Sir Eddington's 1919 expeditions.
>
> Einstein rings are a good start for verifications.
>
> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/32/
The Newtonian law of gravity also predicts such a ring. <shrug>
> That light bends at twice the Newtonian prediction is a textbook
> exercise, and has been known since day one.
>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-1998-12&page=node2...
Einstein's derivation of twice Newtonian result was totally hand-
waving. It cannot be done with the field equations only. You must
also have the metric identified. 0.87" comes from g_00, and another
0.87" comes from g_11. <shrug>
> If you want data on lensing, weak lensing is rather interesting...
>
> http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/joffre/weaklensing.html
This still does not prove the angle of bending is twice the Newtonian
result.
> But if you are going to be whiny and refuse to acknowledge what has
> been known for decades, I suppose this will work:
>
> http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/lrr/1998/12/article.xhtml
>
> Read the page for an introduction to lensing because god knows you
> need it, and read the references for actual data on lensing.
There is no need to whine over something that is a pure lie. You
still have no experimental proof that the angle of bending is twice
the Newtonian amount. <shrug>
However, I am not surprised that you will continue to whine about
something that does not exist or is true. <shrug>
This is just an example. There are actually very few experimental
results that support SR and GR. <shrug>
NoEinstein
>
> read more »
Bigger they are, the harder they fall." But Einstein was such a small
man... that his aches fell into the river with little more than Brownian
motion.
NoEinstein
__________
Sam Wormley
Show me your experimental data please.
óò
Pmb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:H6ati.51482$Fc.50320@attbi_s21...
> NoEinstein wrote:
> Show me your experimental data please.
Ya know something Sam! That's just what my website needs. A good page on
experiments that confirm relativity. Perhaps later this month I'll be able
to do this.
Pete
Koobee Wublee
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > NoEinstein wrote:
> > Show me your experimental data please.
>
> Ya know something Sam! That's just what my website needs. A good page on
> experiments that confirm relativity. Perhaps later this month I'll be able
> to do this.
Hey, that would be very nice. However, you won't do anyone any good
if you are also under the hypnotic spell of the Einstein
Dingleberries. <shrug> Let's see.
The time dilation part seems to have been observed. However, this
does not validate SR because the Lorentz transform, in which SR is
merely an interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform,
indicates symmetric time dilation (principle of relativity). You need
to find an experiment that proves the symmetric time dilation of SR.
In doing so, you will have to embrace the nonsense imposed by the
twin's paradox. Then, you will have to dig yourself out of that
ridiculous predicament. <shrug>
Gravitational redshift can be explained much better through Newtonian
physics. So, what good is GR? <shrug> Also, have you researched on
how Einstein actually concluded a gravitational redshift. Through
Doppler shift! Perhaps, you would understand how I would call
Einstein a nitwit after this.
Gravitational deflection of photons being twice the Newtonian result
has never been thoroughly verified by any experimentation. The 1919
expedition of Sir Eddington was a total joke. <shrug>
Calculations on Mercury's orbital anomaly totally miss the factor on
how fast a planet can complete an orbit. Instead, the mathematics
dwells only on the actual distortion in the geometry itself. On top
of that, you still need to decide if geodesics follow the path with
the maximum accumulated spacetime (mainstream) or the path with the
least accumulated time. For the latter, it is the only way for GR to
predict a gravitational bending of photons. For the former, it would
never allow any photons to propagate through space or spacetime.
However, this absurd hypothesis is how the most popular calculation is
done on Mercury. You need to resolve the internal conflict first
before moving on.
Your quest is indeed monumental. <shrug> Good luck.
Sam Wormley
Hi Pete-- there are some on the Physics FAQ sites
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/index.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey, that would be very nice. However, you won't do anyone any good
> if you are also under the hypnotic spell of the Einstein
> Dingleberries. <shrug> Let's see.
>
Empirical data will do just fine, you old engineering fart!
Koobee Wublee
Your empirical data gives you a large numbers of degrees of freedom in
interpretations in which you can interpret anyway that fits the
political agenda of the day. So, what is good with your empirical
data anyway, Mr. Wormlike?
Sam Wormley
Did you never use empirical data in engineering?