It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
hanson wrote:
Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
which are **believers** in relativity. So, Harlow, get
rollen & cracken... But first, get well yourself.
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahanson
> It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> hanson wrote:
> Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> which are **believers** in relativity.
Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
our GPS systems.
Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
>> It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
>> hanson wrote:
>> Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
>> which are **believers** in relativity.
> Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
> our GPS systems.
> Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
And there are plenty of tools, luddites, and freaks in the world.
I have no idea why hanson thinks that scientists are hell-bent on converting tools, luddites and freaks. Tools, luddites, and freaks have a right to be tools, luddites, and freaks if that gives them jollies.
>> Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
>> isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> And there are plenty of tools, luddites, and freaks in the world.
> I have no idea why hanson thinks that scientists are hell-bent on
> converting tools, luddites and freaks. Tools, luddites, and freaks have
> a right to be tools, luddites, and freaks if that gives them jollies.
I honestly don't care what any crackpot has to say. As long as they keep their toolery away from *me*. See how nice I am?
Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com> lied again,
even and mostly to himself and wrote:
Harlow HVACwrote:
It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
hanson wrote:
Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
which are **believers** in relativity... __like "Fatso"__.
So, Harlow, get rollen & cracken... But first, get well yourself.
Harlow wrote:
Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in particle accelerators.
hanson wrote:
Harlow, do BELIEVE what you wish, but realize that
you sing the classic Psalm of Einstein Dingleberries.
Beside, you BELIEVE what you have read in papers
since you have never worked in/with or at a particle
accelerator... well, perhaps as custodian-apprentice in the lavatory but NOT in the Laboratory... ahahaha...
Harlow wrote:
Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it isn't real in the face of all this evidence. We see real world proof of it every day with our GPS systems.
hanson wrote:
... ahahahahahaha.. Do you now, Harlow, do you....
while any NORMAL high school student or engineer has gleaned, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop,
in ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and seen that
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
Enter Lying Einstein Dingleberry Fatso "Big Dog" who wrote:
And there are plenty of tools, luddites, and freaks in the world.
I have no idea why hanson thinks that scientists are hell-bent on converting tools, luddites and freaks. Tools, luddites, and freaks have a right to be tools, luddites, and freaks if that gives them jollies.
hanson wrote:
So, Fatso, you continue with your lies and self-indictments, and you even admit now that you, Fatso, are "Tool" aka an
Einstein Dingleberry who worships Albert's Sphincter which
classifies you really as a Freak and a Luddite to boot, since
Einstein himself said already, in his own words, 60+ years ago,
that
___ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier ____
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
Now Fatso, you sorry mutt, have your jollies. ahaha..
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PS:
Fatso listen, if you are a senile & sorry doppelgaenger
of PD who disappeared a year ago and became the
above fat cyber canine,.... but if you can resurrect as PD (under a non mutt handle) I would love to continue the discussions we had on issues like these ones here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
<<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>>
On Nov 9, 10:08 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
> > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > which are **believers** in relativity.
> Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not.
> It is not dependent upon belief.
Well, the universe actually does not care if any creature believes
whatever or what. This should be the basics of science. However,
what has GR taught us? To explain what GR, as interpreted by the self-
styled physicists in the past 100 years, has taught us, let’s consider
a segment of spacetime below.
** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
Or
** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2]
Where
** ds^2 = The invariant geometry, a scalar
** [g] = A matrix referred to as the metric
** [dq^2] = Coordinate correlation matrix
** g_ij = Elements to [g]
** dq^i dq^j = Elements to [dq^2]
** ‘*’ = “Dot product” of two matrices
Looking at the above equation, if the geometry is invariant, there is
no fvcking way that the metric is invariant as well since the
coordinate system varies from observer to observer. In the past, Tom
Roberts tried to pull a fast one by by claiming the following (not an
exact quote by you get the idea).
Of course, g_ij varies with the choice of coordinate system, but [g]
must remain invariant.
Koobee Wublee still cannot believe how any professors could be that
ignorant. The metric must varies with the choice of coordinate system
to describe the very invariant geometry. Gee! Just how difficult can
this point be? <shrug>
> We see real world proof of it every day in particle accelerators.
Tom Roberts also has compiled that list of experiments that verify
several predictions of SR. However, these same experiments also
verify the antitheses to SR at the same time. Since the antitheses of
SR invalidate SR and vice versa, effectively, these experiments are
useless to verify SR. This is one of the bases of scientific method,
but the self-styled physicists have failed on that. They do not
understand scientific method, and they are no fvcking scientists.
<shrug>
> We see real world proof of it every day with our GPS systems.
After such gross failure in understanding scientific method, the self-
styled physicists have conjured up quite a little bit of myths. One
of these is the myth of the GPS where GR must be incorporated into the
design of. See the following post. <shrug>
> On Nov 9, 10:08 am, HVAC<h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
>>> Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
>>> which are **believers** in relativity.
>> Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not.
>> It is not dependent upon belief.
> Well, the universe actually does not care if any creature believes
> whatever or what. This should be the basics of science. However,
> what has GR taught us? To explain what GR, as interpreted by the self-
> styled physicists in the past 100 years, has taught us, let’s consider
> a segment of spacetime below.
> ** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
> Or
> ** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2]
> Where
> ** ds^2 = The invariant geometry, a scalar
> ** [g] = A matrix referred to as the metric
> ** [dq^2] = Coordinate correlation matrix
> ** g_ij = Elements to [g]
> ** dq^i dq^j = Elements to [dq^2]
> ** ‘*’ = “Dot product” of two matrices
> Looking at the above equation, if the geometry is invariant, there is
> no fvcking way that the metric is invariant as well since the
> coordinate system varies from observer to observer. In the past, Tom
> Roberts tried to pull a fast one by by claiming the following (not an
> exact quote by you get the idea).
> Of course, g_ij varies with the choice of coordinate system, but [g]
> must remain invariant.
> Koobee Wublee still cannot believe how any professors could be that
> ignorant. The metric must varies with the choice of coordinate system
> to describe the very invariant geometry. Gee! Just how difficult can
> this point be?<shrug>
>> We see real world proof of it every day in particle accelerators.
> Tom Roberts also has compiled that list of experiments that verify
> several predictions of SR. However, these same experiments also
> verify the antitheses to SR at the same time. Since the antitheses of
> SR invalidate SR and vice versa, effectively, these experiments are
> useless to verify SR. This is one of the bases of scientific method,
> but the self-styled physicists have failed on that. They do not
> understand scientific method, and they are no fvcking scientists.
> <shrug>
>> We see real world proof of it every day with our GPS systems.
> After such gross failure in understanding scientific method, the self-
> styled physicists have conjured up quite a little bit of myths. One
> of these is the myth of the GPS where GR must be incorporated into the
> design of. See the following post.<shrug>
> > It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> > hanson wrote:
> > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > which are **believers** in relativity.
> Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
> our GPS systems.
> Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> hanson wrote:
> Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> which are **believers** in relativity. So, Harlow, get
> rollen & cracken... But first, get well yourself.
> Thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahanson
Did he say that? If so, then that is a bigger joke than SR. Definition
of a believer is that a person who believes in a certain statement
that is widely accepted. A non believer is a person who doesn’t
believe in that statement. Here the question of correctness of the
statement doesn’t arise. So, like Bin Laden, HVAC wants to destroy
non believers or kafeer. I hope he will not have to run and hide like
Bin Laden.
> On Nov 9, 11:08 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> > On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
> > > It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> > > hanson wrote:
> > > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > > which are **believers** in relativity.
> > Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> > dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> > particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
> > our GPS systems.
> > Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> > isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> There is no real world experiment that can prove reciprocity of SR.
> Because this relative reciprocity is a joke and not a theory.
Perhaps the displacement of aether is what GR and SR are each
dependent upon.
Everything has to exist or coexist within something, and everything is
forever in orbit of something. The distortions of time and
subsequently physics may simply be the unavoidable distortions caused
by the displacement of aether.
Supposedly our planet within our solar system that within our galaxy
is continually distorted by the fact that we're moving away from
distant galaxies in all directions at near the speed of light.
However the supersolid aether that offers 24 times as much mass is not
moving.
> On Nov 9, 10:08 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> > On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
> > > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > > which are **believers** in relativity.
> > Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not.
> > It is not dependent upon belief.
> Well, the universe actually does not care if any creature believes
> whatever or what. This should be the basics of science. However,
> what has GR taught us? To explain what GR, as interpreted by the self-
> styled physicists in the past 100 years, has taught us, let’s consider
> a segment of spacetime below.
> ** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
> Or
> ** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2]
> Where
> ** ds^2 = The invariant geometry, a scalar
> ** [g] = A matrix referred to as the metric
> ** [dq^2] = Coordinate correlation matrix
> ** g_ij = Elements to [g]
> ** dq^i dq^j = Elements to [dq^2]
> ** ‘*’ = “Dot product” of two matrices
> Looking at the above equation, if the geometry is invariant, there is
> no fvcking way that the metric is invariant as well since the
> coordinate system varies from observer to observer. In the past, Tom
> Roberts tried to pull a fast one by by claiming the following (not an
> exact quote by you get the idea).
> Of course, g_ij varies with the choice of coordinate system, but [g]
> must remain invariant.
> Koobee Wublee still cannot believe how any professors could be that
> ignorant. The metric must varies with the choice of coordinate system
> to describe the very invariant geometry. Gee! Just how difficult can
> this point be? <shrug>
> > We see real world proof of it every day in particle accelerators.
> Tom Roberts also has compiled that list of experiments that verify
> several predictions of SR. However, these same experiments also
> verify the antitheses to SR at the same time. Since the antitheses of
> SR invalidate SR and vice versa, effectively, these experiments are
> useless to verify SR. This is one of the bases of scientific method,
> but the self-styled physicists have failed on that. They do not
> understand scientific method, and they are no fvcking scientists.
> <shrug>
> > We see real world proof of it every day with our GPS systems.
> After such gross failure in understanding scientific method, the self-
> styled physicists have conjured up quite a little bit of myths. One
> of these is the myth of the GPS where GR must be incorporated into the
> design of. See the following post. <shrug>
> > Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> > isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> It is obvious that the self-styled physicists are creating myths.
> That is called degeneracy in scientific advancement, no? <shrug>
Tom might have made unintentional mistake, because what you have
stated is fundamental truth of Riemannian space. ds^2 is called simply
metric and as you said, it is invariant. This metric has components
represented as mentioned in your post. Multiplying factor g is called
metric tensor. So the word ‘metric’ is used for both. This can cause
confusion. But it is basic common knowledge that g being a tensor, it
has variable components. Since this is basic, I assume that Tom made
unintentional mistake but was too embarrassed to admit it.
> Harlow wrote:
> Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> particle accelerators.
> hanson wrote:
> Harlow, do BELIEVE what you wish, but realize that
> you sing the classic Psalm of Einstein Dingleberries.
> Beside, you BELIEVE what you have read in papers
> since you have never worked in/with or at a particle
> accelerator... well, perhaps as custodian-apprentice in the lavatory but
> NOT in the Laboratory... ahahaha...
> Harlow wrote:
> Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> isn't real in the face of all this evidence. We see real world proof of
> it every day with our GPS systems.
> hanson wrote:
> ... ahahahahahaha.. Do you now, Harlow, do you....
> while any NORMAL high school student or engineer has gleaned, for this
> particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old
> Newtonian ways, and seen that
Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in particle accelerators.
hanson wrote:
Harlow, do BELIEVE what you wish, but realize that
you sing the classic Psalm of Einstein Dingleberries.
Beside, you BELIEVE what you have read in papers
since you have never worked in/with or at a particle
accelerator... well, perhaps as custodian-apprentice in the lavatory but NOT in the Laboratory... ahahaha...
Harlow wrote:
Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it isn't real in the face of all this evidence. We see real world proof of
it every day with our GPS systems.
hanson wrote:
... ahahahahahaha.. Do you now, Harlow, do you....
while any NORMAL high school student or engineer has gleaned, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and seen that [see below what you've snipped, as it
apparently made you feel uneasy, to say the least]
Harlow wrote:
You don't believe in god, do you, Mr.Hanson?
hanson wrote:
No. We went over your sidestep gag with you before,
& it is your usual MO when you try to get off the ropes.
So, here is the info again, for your benefit, for you to recuperate from the intellectual damage that some teacher/s have caused you when they poisoned your mind with REL-crap, despite the fact that
__ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier __
hanson initially wrote:
Harlow, re: GPS; any NORMAL high school student or engineer has gleaned, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and seen that
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
Enter Lying Einstein Dingleberry Fatso "Big Dog" who wrote:
And there are plenty of tools, luddites, and freaks in the world.
I have no idea why hanson thinks that scientists are hell-bent on converting tools, luddites and freaks. Tools, luddites, and freaks have a right to be tools, luddites, and freaks if that gives them jollies.
hanson wrote:
So, Fatso, you continue with your lies and self-indictments, and you even admit now that you, Fatso, are "Tool" aka an
Einstein Dingleberry who worships Albert's Sphincter which
classifies you really as a Freak and a Luddite to boot, since
Einstein himself said already, in his own words, 60+ years ago,
that
___ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier ____
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
Now Fatso, you sorry mutt, have your jollies. ahaha..
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PS:
Fatso listen, if you are a senile & sorry doppelgaenger
of PD who disappeared a year ago and became the
above fat cyber canine,.... but if you can resurrect as PD (under a non mutt handle) I would love to continue the discussions we had on issues like these ones here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
<<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>>
> On Nov 10, 5:37 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 11:08 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> > > On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
> > > > It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> > > > hanson wrote:
> > > > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > > > which are **believers** in relativity.
> > > Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> > > dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> > > particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
> > > our GPS systems.
> > > Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> > > isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> > There is no real world experiment that can prove reciprocity of SR.
> > Because this relative reciprocity is a joke and not a theory.
> Perhaps the displacement of aether is what GR and SR are each
> dependent upon.
> Everything has to exist or coexist within something, and everything is
> forever in orbit of something. The distortions of time and
> subsequently physics may simply be the unavoidable distortions caused
> by the displacement of aether.
> Supposedly our planet within our solar system that within our galaxy
> is continually distorted by the fact that we're moving away from
> distant galaxies in all directions at near the speed of light.
> However the supersolid aether that offers 24 times as much mass is not
> moving.
If you apply this philosophy to ether then we have problem at hand. If
everything has to exist in something, then ether too has to exist in
something and finally we arrive at empty space with limitless
dimensions. We then arrive at the definition of a dimension when there
are at least two object in it.
In nature, we cannot see some physical quantities or sense these with
our biological sensors. With technological sensors, we are able to
know more about known and unknown entities. We then arrive at the
properties of these unseen entities. We also use mathematics to be
precise. But most importantly, we must apply logic and concepts
without which there is no correct physics.
Unless we go through this process, there is a danger that we may stick
to the wrong concepts for a very long time. Logic tells us that we
need ether for light waves. But it also tells us that for light to be
waves in ether, ether should have impossible properties. So logic
tells us that, either light is not a wave or mechanical properties
applicable to material waves are not applicable to ether. In the later
case, we can also assume that time dependent EM fields do not need a
medium.
Assumption of any concept cannot be based on speculation, even if
spectacular. We don’t have proof for ether or convincing logic in
support of it. On the other hand, we have theories which do not need
ether and so why should we stick to ether?
This also applies to space-time and all other predictions of SR and
GR. If concept of ether was a mistake, relativity theory is a major
disaster. It took centuries for scientists to get rid of ether. I
don’t know how many will be needed to get rid of this comical theory
of relativity.
> On Nov 10, 6:59 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 5:37 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 11:08 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> > > > On 11/9/2012 11:53 AM, hanson wrote:
> > > > > It is my job to root out all believers and destroy them.
> > > > > hanson wrote:
> > > > > Good!. There are hordes of Einstein Dingleberries
> > > > > which are **believers** in relativity.
> > > > Relativity doesn't care whether anyone believes or not. It is not
> > > > dependent upon belief. We see real world proof of it every day in
> > > > particle accelerators. We see real world proof of it every day with
> > > > our GPS systems.
> > > > Only a complete tool, a Luddite, or a religious freak would think it
> > > > isn't real in the face of all this evidence.
> > > There is no real world experiment that can prove reciprocity of SR.
> > > Because this relative reciprocity is a joke and not a theory.
> > Perhaps the displacement of aether is what GR and SR are each
> > dependent upon.
> > Everything has to exist or coexist within something, and everything is
> > forever in orbit of something. The distortions of time and
> > subsequently physics may simply be the unavoidable distortions caused
> > by the displacement of aether.
> > Supposedly our planet within our solar system that's within our galaxy
> > is continually distorted by the fact that we're moving away from
> > distant galaxies in all directions at near the speed of light.
> > However the supersolid aether that offers 24 times as much mass is not
> > moving.
> If you apply this philosophy to ether then we have problem at hand. If
> everything has to exist in something, then ether too has to exist in
> something and finally we arrive at empty space with limitless
> dimensions. We then arrive at the definition of a dimension when there
> are at least two object in it.
How about a merging pair of monstrous black holes of at least 5e56 kg
each should do the trick, of creating multiple universes of
mostly(95%) aether with a little bit(5%) of molecular matter.
> In nature, we cannot see some physical quantities or sense these with
> our biological sensors. With technological sensors, we are able to
> know more about known and unknown entities. We then arrive at the
> properties of these unseen entities. We also use mathematics to be
> precise. But most importantly, we must apply logic and concepts
> without which there is no correct physics.
> Unless we go through this process, there is a danger that we may stick
> to the wrong concepts for a very long time. Logic tells us that we
> need ether for light waves. But it also tells us that for light to be
> waves in ether, ether should have impossible properties. So logic
> tells us that, either light is not a wave or mechanical properties
> applicable to material waves are not applicable to ether. In the later
> case, we can also assume that time dependent EM fields do not need a
> medium.
> Assumption of any concept cannot be based on speculation, even if
> spectacular. We don’t have proof for ether or convincing logic in
> support of it. On the other hand, we have theories which do not need
> ether and so why should we stick to ether?
Assumptions for better or worse help lead some of us to the next step.
> This also applies to space-time and all other predictions of SR and
> GR. If concept of ether was a mistake, relativity theory is a major
> disaster. It took centuries for scientists to get rid of ether. I
> don’t know how many will be needed to get rid of this comical theory
> of relativity.
No doubt the invested mainstream status quo of GR and SR is going to
fight to their death, and then some.
Aether as a supersolid that's displaced by ordinary molecular matter
should actually help improve upon and thus reinforce GR and SR
theories.
> Tom might have made unintentional mistake, because what you have
> stated is fundamental truth of Riemannian space. ds^2 is called simply
> metric and as you said, it is invariant.
No sir. Try again. You've made an error, perhaps based on shallow reading.
> This metric has components
> represented as mentioned in your post. Multiplying factor g is called
> metric tensor. So the word ‘metric’ is used for both. This can cause
> confusion. But it is basic common knowledge that g being a tensor, it
> has variable components. Since this is basic, I assume that Tom made
> unintentional mistake but was too embarrassed to admit it.
