Was Einstein a fake?
Dirk Van de moortel
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
a fake?"
The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.
Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...
Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm
rbwinn
Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.
Robert B. Winn
Shubee
Relativity isn't wrong but it is an affront to common sense because
physicists prefer Einstein's barbaric approach to the subject, which
is mystical and unenlightened when compared to modern standards.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63b31834-6fdc-4051...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| Relativity isn't wrong
Assertion carries no weight, crank.
What I want to know is why Einstein says
the speed of light is c-v from A to B,
the speed of light is c+v from B to A,
the time each way is the same.
He must have been a right kook... like you.
Steve Bell
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3EEQj.61249$Ka7....@newsfe30.ams2...
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for this interesting link. In it, there are discussions towards the
bottom. In a post from David Thomson, there was a link that let to another
link http://www.16pi2.com. This link describes the Aether Physics Model
(APM).
On the APM page was another link to an "electron binding energy equation"
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf. In this PDF
document, they give a prediction of -13.606 eV for ground state hydrogen's
binding energy. I should point out, this disagrees with what the well
established observed experimental Rydbeg constant for hydrogen says ground
state hydrogen's binding energy is from unbiased spectroscopic data, which
is more like -13.5982842 eV. It would appear then, that this APM model does
not fair well when compared to the observed. There is only way I know of, to
make a relativistic model agree with the observed R_H, which looks somewhat
related to the APM, but it certainly does not rely on an aether concept.
Steve Bell
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Dear Dirk Van de moortel:
"Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EEQj.61249$Ka7....@newsfe30.ams2...
> Nice read:
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
...
> Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant
> hulk of a guy who really put the fear of physical
> harm into some of the folks over there"? I'm
> sure he's present in this newsgroup...
I wouldn't bet on it.
"Matt McIrvin" was posting form Harvard in 1995. No telling if
he has "received the cure" yet or not.
Pretty interesting comments have already been made there too...
David A. Smith
rbwinn
Einstein was very logical compared to these people today.
Robert B. Winn
Pmb
"rbwinn" <rbw...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:c46a9564-7667-4262...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice read:
> ? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> ? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> ? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> ? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> ? ? a fake?"
>
> The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
> known names.
>
> Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
> a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
> of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
> newsgroup...
>
> Enjoy reading,
> Dirk Vdm
>Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.
Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.
Pete
Pmb
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63b31834-6fdc-4051...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Actually it is you who is wrong.
mL
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> "Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:63b31834-6fdc-4051...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> | Relativity isn't wrong
>
> Assertion carries no weight, crank.
>
> What I want to know is why Einstein says
> the speed of light is c-v from A to B,
> the speed of light is c+v from B to A,
> the time each way is the same.
No, it's you who says (or makes the assertion) that:
" Einstein says
the speed of light is c-v from A to B,
the speed of light is c+v from B to A "
Do you want to know why you say that?
Mike
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice read:
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> a fake?"
>
Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.
Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.
Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
groups.
I think Relativists are the ones who do the most harm to Relativity,
not the cranks and the cooks. String theopry is the new religion,
Relativity is dying.
Mike
P.S Dirt, after solving for the relativistic golden ration , this is
the best you could come up with? How about showing that according to
relativity, someone can know the lotto numbers before they are drawn?
va...@cox.net
And you're just a typical crackpot, ignorant to the bone [head].
> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dono
Wow, Tom van Flandern, David Thompson and some comments from Patchko
Velev, all the nutters in one place!
Dono
http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg
Shubee
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
> mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
> very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
> since Isaac Newton.
You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/46a1e855c9be269b
Shubee
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:48f87ecc-6d74-41a4...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing
Totally blotto...
Alen
Good grief! sci.physics.relativity actually got a direct
mention, no less!!! Imagine us having such an impact!
Never mind about the description of 'crackpots', 'cranks',
and the like. That is nothing new. But a recognition of
the existence of a 'burgeoning' world of 'dissent', ourselves
included! That is really something!
And look at the final remarks in the article: that there
might actually be someone, working in obscurity, with
some valid new insight! A remarkable admission that
there might actually be someone who is
"NOT A CRACKPOT"!!!!! Incredible!
Alen
rbwinn
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors trying to justify
the Lorentz equations. I will give Einstein this: I think that if
someone had shown Einstein how the Galilean transformation equations
relate to the Lorentz equations, he would have looked at the evidence
and probably would have started to use the Galilean transformation
equations, since his goal was a unified field theory, and the Lorentz
equations were not getting him there. That would have made him a much
more intelligent person than scientists of today. However, Einstein
is long since dead, so we are stuck trying to explain facts to
scientists who do not even understand what Einstein said, much less
mathematically correct equations.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
Robert B. Winn
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c46a9564-7667-4262...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nice read:
> > > ? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> > > ? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> > > ? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> > > ? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> > > ? ? a fake?"
>
> > > The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
> > > known names.
>
> > > Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
> > > a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
> > > of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
> > > newsgroup...
>
> > > Dirk Vdm
> > >Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.
>
> > Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
> > mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
> > very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
> > since Isaac Newton.
>
> > Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
laugh.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 26, 7:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice read:
> > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> > "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> > relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> > outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> > a fake?"
>
> Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
> of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
> concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.
>
> Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
> establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
> reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
> theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
> area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.
>
> Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
> objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
> theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
> in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
> scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
> groups.
Relativity has survived four generations of physicists. Try another
asinine argument.
rbwinn
It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
kind of things Einstein was trying to do. If simple algebra describes
the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
likely to be correct.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
cow to get money from public revenues. I do not think we are going to
see any change in that practice any time soon.
Robert B. Winn
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:bd058715-c3f3-4233...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice read:
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.
I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?
It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
where none exists.
"Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.
Spirit of Truth
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3EEQj.61249$Ka7....@newsfe30.ams2...
Cosmos might want to read Fabric of the Cosmos by
Brian Greene! Therein, Eintstein's lack of simultaneity
in SR categorically makes a blocktime universe, no
freewill, a preexisting past and future - against all
real reality of this universe.
That is what should be exposed to the public, and
relativists have to confront and explain that absurdity.
Spirit of Truth
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You pathetic psychotic baboon face what makes think you qualify to
evaluate any argument at all? You are a stoopid high school dropout
who does not know calculus while at the same time exgibits all the
characteristics of a crackpot, although you have not exposed yourself
completely yet. This post proves who you are:
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c4daf
There are other places you can jerk off, why sci.physios groups you
little imbecile?
Mike
Mike
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:bd058715-c3f3-4233...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice read:
> >http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> "I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
> this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
> seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.
>
> I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
> "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
> Einstein.
He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "
So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
you say --- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common "time"
for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean transformations.
Mike
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:bd058715-c3f3-4233...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice read:
> >http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> "I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
> this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
> seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.
>
> I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
> "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
> Einstein.
[misplaced comment moved to end of post]
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" for each journey is the same ?
Where's your answer to my question?
> It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
> where none exists.
> "Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
> John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.
Misplaced comment deleted. No answer to my question given,
no discussion possible with a bigot who refuses to respond.
Mike
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
>
> news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This message is brought to you by Androcles
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> > "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:bd058715-c3f3-4233...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nice read:
> > >http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> > "I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
> > this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
> > seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.
>
> > I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
> > "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> > from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
> > Einstein.
>
> [misplaced comment moved to end of post]
>
> > Why did Einstein say
> > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > the "time" for each journey is the same ?
>
> Where's your answer to my question?
He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.
He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "
So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
"time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
transformations.
If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one pal.
Mike
>
> > It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
> > where none exists.
> > "Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
> > John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.
>
> Misplaced comment deleted. No answer to my question given,
> no discussion possible with a bigot who refuses to respond.- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:c7e55ca7-cc7e-4fda...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.
If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.
So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.
rbwinn
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
Surfer
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nice read:
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> a fake?"
>
Relativity has worked well. However the following quotes show that
Einstein was open to other possibilties.
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between
gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are
based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory
collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark
1971, p.328)
Einstein might be being too negative here. It seems to me that if
a formula for Miller's fringe shifts were to hold equally well
in all inertial frames of reference, then the principle of relativity
would not be directly violated. If that were the case I don't see
why SR shouldn't adapt by simply adopting a neo-Lorentzian
interpretation, but still retain the same formulae and maths.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should
the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of
relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its
current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the
equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they
would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm
satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a
single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I
feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice
Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and
Rebel 1972, p.328)
I think the formulae of SR will be with us for ever, but probably not
GR.
There are new trends. Eg
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412039
Derivation of the postulates of quantum mechanics from the first
principles of scale relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2418
Dono
Shitbert,
Are you upset that the article didn't mention you ?
Koobee Wublee
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.
Under the special theory of relativity (SR), the principle of
relativity was already pointed out by Galileo almost three hundred
years before Einstein. The constancy in the speed of light was
already proposed by Voigt in 1887 to explain the null results of
Michelson’s 1881 experiment. In doing so, Voigt abandoned the
principle of relativity and derived the Voigt transform. By 1897, the
Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor after a modification
to the Lorentz transform to allow for the principle of relativity. By
1904, Poincare had already pointed out the most important concept of
SR. That is the relative simultaneity. Thus, what Einstein’s
contribution is in SR is still vague unless discussing Einstein’s many
obvious plagiarisms. The special theory cannot be Einstein’s.
However, he did name the hypothesis SR. That would make him a good
marketing person or advertisement specialist at best. <shrug>
Farrell said “A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and
self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs
on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of
relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only
wrong, it's an affront to common sense, ...”
Well, the hypotheses known as the special and general (GR) theories of
relativity are merely two such crackpot conjectures. <shrug> GR has
tons of self-conflicts. SR’s problem is the relative simultaneity
which manifests the twin’s paradox. Believing in the resolution to
the twin’s paradox really requires a lot of faith. Each proposed
resolution is contradictory of the others. There is no favored
resolution.
Bryan Gaensler said "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-
organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along
well enough to form a serious threat to science."
He is quite right. For the crackpots, it is easy to deal with. For
the more serious challenges, all they have to do is to keep silent.
In doing so, they just shove these challenges to the next
generations. To keep the faiths of SR and GR alive, all they need to
do is to brainwash the next generations before the generation get
exposed to any serious challenges.
Farrell said “The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as
Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905.
Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts
of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically
established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these
concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of
almost every crank theory since.”
This is total nonsense. All Newton’s work is based on the expansion
of the two principles that Galileo discovered. They are the
principles of relativity and equivalence. Newton’s work does not
require absolute space and time. <shrug>
Farrell said “Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was
the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his
General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and
offered a radically new explanation for gravity.”
Apparently, Farrell did not know of Riemann’s work. By the middle of
the nineteenth century, Riemann had already suggesting curved space as
a possible cause of gravity. After Minkowski wrote down the concise
equation describing flat spacetime from the Lorentz transform, it is
suddenly possible to extend Riemann’s work into four dimensions. Only
the curvature in the temporal dimension yields the effect of gravity.
<shrug> The first team to study the curvature in spacetime was not
Einstein. The Goettingen group of mathematicians included all the
known characters such as Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
himself. The Einstein field equations can only be derived after
Hilbert pulled out of the Lagrangian from his *ss. By taking the
partial derivative of this so-called Lagrangian with respect to each
element of the metric, the field equations reveal themselves.
Farrell said “A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised
Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame.”
Ha ha ha. Who would be jealous of or resentful to a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. Farrel’s comment involves faith. Only after
establishing Einstein as the Messiah to the faiths of SR and GR, he
can state that groundless statement. <shrug>
Farrell said “Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the
failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible
medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the
propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity
and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.”
Yes, that is because Michelson was very smart. He also saw the
ridiculous religious icon known as the relative simultaneity which
manifests the twin’s paradox. Voigt himself probably did also
discover the Lorentz transform in 1887. However, realizing the
ridiculous nature in relative simultaneity, he opted to discard it in
favor of the Voigt transform.
Farrell said “According to him [Tom Van Flandern], the confusing
‘rigmarole’ of relativity isn't needed to maintain the GPS, even
though in theory it should be.”
Originally as perceived by the physicists, GPS receivers call out for
only three satellites to compute the four quantities of unknowns.
They are longitude, latitude, altitude, and time. Yes, it becomes
necessary to synchronize the clocks of the satellites and ground.
There suddenly opens up an opportunity for GR into the design of GPS.
However, someone most likely an engineer realized it takes four
equations to solve for four unknowns. Thus, if there are four
satellites to be incorporated into the computations, it becomes
unnecessary for the synchronization of the satellites and ground as
long as all satellites are synchronized themselves. This eliminates
the need to utilize GR. Is Farrell suggesting Van Flandern as this
genius to think about the very obvious that eluded the original group
of physicists?
Ashby said "Einstein has not been 'blown off'. On the contrary, a
great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known
special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if
they are predicted to be big enough to be important."
This is total nonsense. GPS proves relative simultaneity wrong. GPS
proves SR wrong. If anyone understands relative simultaneity as
faith, he will be asking how GPS falsifies relative simultaneity.
This proves all of them do not understand relative simultaneity and
SR. <shrug>
Farrell said “But the most interesting aspect of Van Flandern's
objections to relativity bears directly on Einstein himself and his
professional integrity. According to Van Flandern, Einstein cheated.
Van Flandern told Bethell that he has reason to believe Einstein
manipulated his field equations for one of his most momentous
predictions.”
Van Flandern is correct that Einstein cheated. However, this cheating
happened before the field equations. In the late summer or fall of
1915, Einstein with help from his buddies fudged Gerber’s work to
obtain the observed anomalous advance in Mercury’s perihelion. In
doing so, they also made a few mistakes. It was bragging about this
that caused Hilbert to expose the Lagrangian that yielded the field
equations.
Farrell said “...Carroll Alley, who received his degree in 1962. He
told me he had once hired Van Flandern to do some work in celestial
mechanics. As for knowing Einstein personally, Alley recounted how he
had had the pleasure of attending the last lecture given by the great
physicist before his death in 1955.”
This means Alley attended Einstein’s lectures while Alley was still a
freshman or a sophomore in high school. I believe Alley’s memory was
not as good as what it used to be.
Farrell said “He [Alley] went on to say that Einstein knew that
Mercury's observed perihelion was 43 arc seconds per century more than
Newton's theory predicted.” Thus, the suggestion of “knowing the
answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with
the right value" is very much the truth after all.
Farrell said “As far as I [Carlip] can tell, Van Flandern simply
doesn't understand the Einstein field equations."
I have shown how all physicists do not understand relative
simultaneity and thus SR. Most physicists also believed in the
dependence of the geodesic equations and the field equations besides
the elements to the metric. They also believed in the same divine
field equations as the mathematical model explaining exactly how
gravitational waves propagate. You can very much tell that most
physicists or even all physicists do not understand the field
equations. <shrug>
Farrell said “Janssen, in particular, worked closely on a review of
Einstein's Mercury paper, and he was not amused about the accusation
that there may have been fudging: ‘Not to put too fine a point on it,
that is crap.’”
The following was how Einstein obtained Mercury’s orbital advance
without using the field equations.
http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm
Are Stachel and Janssen for real?
Smolin a specialist in GR said “I have ... personally checked the
calculations about the perihelion of Mercury, as have, I'm sure,
thousands of other people."
Has Smolin checked the math based on the geodesic model that the
geodesic path follows the one with the least amount of time instead of
spacetime?
Smolin said "Sometimes someone has been working for many years on an
idea, and has clearly a huge investment in it.”
Yes, for the physicists to accept the nonsense in SR and GR, it would
represent the greatest embarrassment. Therefore, the religions of SR
and GR must continue at all cost. <shrug>
Smolin said "I would insist that any proposal for a radically new
theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear
explanation of why the precedent science worked." Farrell added
“Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special
relativity, ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, illustrates
perfectly.”
I need to puke. Einstein’s papers represent plagiarism to the max.
He fudged the derivation in the most nonsensical way to derive at the
Lorentz transform in which he already knew the works of others
before. He also made a series of mistakes to get to (E = m c^2 /
sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)). It is so obvious. What the f*ck are the
physicists doing?
Farrel said “...PSR 1913+16, whose orbital decay met predictions based
on the General Theory of Relativity, to the accuracy quoted above
(1000 or so), during a period of 20 years.”
We shall see in several hundred thousand years. The energy must be
conserved. This will cause the orbits of the stars into more
eccentric. Any nearby star will toss them into two independent
stars.
Gaensler said "I feel sorry for these people — because, after all,
there might be someone out there now like Einstein, working in
obscurity, who does have some truly new insight, but scientists just
won't take him seriously because of all these other crackpots we've
had to deal with."
I would agree on this point.
Dono
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have a comprehension problem.
Mike
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:6be73fad-8b8e-4cde...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
So you have no answer and do not comprehend mathematics, anencephalous
cretin, hoping to resort to a flame war in your extreme embarrassment.
Not much different to Dork Van de merde the local village idiot, are you?
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.
JanPB
> “Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.
>
> Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
> a fake I suppose.
Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
many times on this NG already.
For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
mumbo-jumbo" variety. Unlike those who got stuck early on some
elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
level: basic differential geometry. Because of that he can easily
generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
layman. Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
this stuff usually don't bother. After all, it makes no difference.
--
Jan Bielawski
YBM
> tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.
This is not a function but a equation.
Mike
When you flame everything is ok you say.
> tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.
Yes it is linear function of x' = x -vt. Do you see your scrambled
egg head any non-linear term in x'?
I think you have it all messed up in your mind. There is nothing wrong
if you come back and concede do your mistakes. Then you can move on
and learn things the right way.
As far as I am concerned you are a good man who isntaed of using a
hammer tries instead to put the nail in the wall by banging it with
his head. Change that and everything will be fine.
I took relativity as a freshman against the protest of mayne
professors in the department because I was also taking intro physics
at the same time. I told them that if they do not let me rake the
course I will quit college.
My test was a fairly elementary one but taught that time in Senior
level, "Concepts of Modern Physics", 2nd ed. by Arthur Beiser.
To me Relativity was intuitive, contrary to Newtoniam Mechanics, which
was not. However, I do not agree with the mystical, onscure way it is
taught ins schools. Educational establishement wants the cake and the
dog fed. They want people to embrace relativity bu8t they do not want
to understand it at the same time. For reasons I and other understand,
but not you.
Mike
Mike
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:4e12b94f-59ca-4bfa...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Fucking idiot. It's a total waste of time even trying with you, you are
completely clueless. Learn Math 101, linear functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_function
*plonk*
Bryan Olson
> The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.
> All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
> represents the equation t'=t. Any clocks running at some other rate,
> including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
> represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
> defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
> Good grief! sci.physics.relativity actually got a direct
> mention, no less!!! Imagine us having such an impact!
The article is about kookology, not physics. Enjoy your impact.
> Never mind about the description of 'crackpots', 'cranks',
> and the like.
Mind this bit:
"In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
members of the public who are interested in science and
even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
to have the reasons explained to them."
> That is nothing new. But a recognition of
> the existence of a 'burgeoning' world of 'dissent', ourselves
> included! That is really something!
Over 50 years ago, Martin Gardner gave the "Down with
Einstein" kooks a chapter in his /Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science/. As for 'burgeoning', few forms of kookery
have missed Usenet and the WWW.
> And look at the final remarks in the article: that there
> might actually be someone, working in obscurity, with
> some valid new insight! A remarkable admission that
> there might actually be someone who is
> "NOT A CRACKPOT"!!!!! Incredible!
Except that the 'admission' is standard fare. Kooks commonly
suffer a self-inflicted deafness to the points against their
pet ideas. Take the time to read his bunkum and explain where
it goes wrong, and a kook will go on ranting about some
establishment automatically dismissing his ideas just because
he's an outsider.
--
--Bryan
rbwinn
Time is relative, Bryan. A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time. t'=t defines another measurement of time. The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t. n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t. A clock can be made
to run at any speed. Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
Robert B. Winn
Bryan Olson
So no clue then?
The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.
--
--Bryan
Pmb
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4717437e-17dd-4c5f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 5:19 pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>> great
>> mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's
>> the
>> very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
>> since Isaac Newton.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/46a1e855c9be269b
>
> Shubee
I'm sorry to inform you that it is far more likely that what is published in
the physics literature, which makes perfect sense if you really understood
physics, is more accurate than your so-called understanding of history.
Sure, Einstein and Hilbert both worked on GR and worked together at times.
That doesn't mean that Einstein was a fake as you so erroneously claim. The
physics literature is the true record of who wrote/published what and it is
very clear that Einstein played the dominant role in GR. Your mistake is
thinking that because Einstein didn't do 100% of the work that he is some
sort of fake. That idea rests solely in your own mind and the minds of
others like you who have a twisted sense of the history of science.
Pmb
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4717437e-17dd-4c5f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 5:19 pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>> Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a
>> great
>> mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's
>> the
>> very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
>> since Isaac Newton.
>
> You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/46a1e855c9be269b
>
> Shubee
Now that you mention it I have no time nor disk space for this kind of
twisted nonsense - Plonk!
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > “Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.
>
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
> > a fake I suppose.
>
> Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
> many times on this NG already.
This is a wishful thinking on your part. It is OK to fantasize, but
it is not if you cannot tell what your fantasy is and what is not.
<shrug>
> For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
> mumbo-jumbo" variety.
So, a special crank of some sort that you are so scared sh*tless.
<shrug>
> Unlike those who got stuck early on some
> elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
> level: basic differential geometry.
Another interpretation which is the correct one is that Koobee Wublee
has surpassed beyond differential geometry. After he has pointed out
the problem associated with what is commonly believed, you remained
confused. You have no ability to comprehend even the basic stuff.
<shrug>
> Because of that he can easily
> generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
> layman.
Boy, you are really insulting the ‘layman’, Mr. film critic.
> Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
> this stuff usually don't bother.
As I said, keeping silent is a very good strategy to prolong the
nonsense in SR and GR. <shrug>
> After all, it makes no difference.
Well, if you keep silent, you would not be embarrassed by Koobee
Wublee that seems to be the tail-between-the-legs approach favored by
Professors Carlip and Roberts. <shrug>
Dono
http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg
Koobee Wublee
> http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg
Within minutes of publishing of Koobee Wublee’s great post below, he
got 38 one-star ratings.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/10f71d409fd43d8b
This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> That doesn't mean that Einstein was a fake as you so erroneously claim.
I never said that Einstein was a fake. I merely said that Einstein's
reputation has been exaggerated to the point of being a god.
> The physics literature is the true record of who wrote/published what
> and it is very clear that Einstein played the dominant role in GR.
In other words, because Einstein never acknowledged the major insights
that he hustled from others to make SR and GR work, then those other
contributors never existed?
> Your mistake is thinking that because Einstein didn't do 100% of the
> work that he is some sort of fake.
Were you ever taught that all lying idol worshippers are going to
hell? The only point that I’ve raised is that we should weigh the
insights of all the individual contributors to GR.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Dono
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/10f71d409fd...
>
> This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
> to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?
That's you! Hahahahahaha
Alen
> Alen wrote:
[...]
> Mind this bit:
>
> "In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
> members of the public who are interested in science and
> even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
> about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
> tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
> to have the reasons explained to them."
> --Bryan
Yes, indeed; that would be the absolute favourite
expectation of the orthodox supporters - the perfect
outcome. Not, in fact, only the favourite, but the only
one to be even allowed on considered at all!
I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc. Could it ever be that I
simply disagree? Oh dear! Never! Impossible! Such
a concept is beyond the horizon.Inconceivable!
The so-called kooks thus have no monopoly on self-inflicted
blindness. In spite of any physics or mathematical
intelligence they may have, the orthodox supporters
totally fail in any capacity to understand that humans
are autonomous beings with autonomous minds, and
that this fact cannot be 'corrected' by the magic of
incantations like 'kook', 'crackpot', and the like.
Alen
Koobee Wublee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/46a1e855c9be269b
>
> I'm sorry to inform you that it is far more likely that what is published in
> the physics literature, which makes perfect sense if you really understood
> physics, is more accurate than your so-called understanding of history.
> Sure, Einstein and Hilbert both worked on GR and worked together at times.
> That doesn't mean that Einstein was a fake as you so erroneously claim. The
> physics literature is the true record of who wrote/published what and it is
> very clear that Einstein played the dominant role in GR. Your mistake is
> thinking that because Einstein didn't do 100% of the work that he is some
> sort of fake. That idea rests solely in your own mind and the minds of
> others like you who have a twisted sense of the history of science.
Pmb is a fine example of Orwelling teaching.
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
The following is a brief description of GR. If you understand all
that, you will be doing more so than most physicists.
* * * * General Theory of Relativity (GR) * * * *
The development of GR first diverged from Newtonian physics around the
middle of the nineteenth century, when Riemann wrote down the
relationship of an actual displacement segment to how an observer
observes this same displacement segment.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** ds = Invariant geometry in displacement
** g_ij = Elements of the metric
** dg^i = Observer’s choice of coordinate system
** i, j = 1, 2, 3 (3 spatial dimensions)
The shortest distance through the actual space (invariant geometry)
can now be computed using the calculus of variations. This was
exactly how Christoffel did it in the famous geodesic equations.
d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) @q^i/@s @q^j/
@s / 2 = 0
Where
** i, j, k, n = 1, 2, 3
** @ = Partial derivative operator
The quantities called the connection coefficients in the geodesic
equations become the Christoffel symbols of the second kind below.
Y^n_ij = g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) / 2
Where
** d^2q^n/ds^2 + Y^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0
However, due to the symmetry in the metric, there is at least another
way of presenting the geodesic equations.
d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2) @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0
In doing so, the connection coefficients are very different from the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.
Z^n_ij = g^nk @g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2
Where
** d^2q^n/ds^2 + Z^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0
About a decade before the transition of the nineteenth and the
twentieth centuries, Ricci defined the covariant derivative based on
the geodesic equations and the connection coefficients. However,
Ricci did not know there is another set of connection coefficients
that are equally valid to describe the geodesic equations as the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.
DX^n/Ds = dX^n/ds + Y^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j
Where
** DX^n/DS = Covariant derivative on X, a vector
The idea is to allow the covariant derivative of (X = dq^n/ds) to be
null in accordance with the geodesic equations. However,
mathematically there exists another operator that can achieve the
exact same thing.
EX^n/Es = dX^n/ds + Z^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j
Where
** EX^n/ES = Another operator on X, a vector
Ricci went on to derive (invent) the Riemann tensor which just like
the metric is merely a matrix. The derivation takes us through the
null geodesic variations.
R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_kl Y^l_jk – Y^n_jl Y^l_ik
Or
R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_jl Y^l_ik – Y^n_jl Y^l_ik
Ricci, however, only discovered the first tensor above while the
second one is also very mathematically valid in accordance with the
method of null geodesic variations. Ricci’s student Levi-Civita then
invented the Ricci tensor based on the Riemann tensor derived by Ricci
(the first equation above).
R_ij = @Y^k_ij/@q^k - @Y^k_ik/@q^j + Y^k_kl Y^l_ij – Y^k_jl Y^l_ik
Where
** R_ij = R^k_ikj
The Ricci scalar follows as described below.
R = g^ij R_ij
Where
** g^ij = inverse of the matrix g_ij the metric
After the introduction of the Lorentz transformation, the Goettingen
group of physicists including Minkowski, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and
Klein extended Riemann’s description of curved space into a four-
dimensional spacetime.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** ds = Invariant geometry in spacetime
** g_ij = Elements of the metric
** dg^i = Observer’s choice of coordinate system
** i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3 (1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions)
In 1915, Hilbert finally invented the following Lagrangian which does
not even satisfy as a Lagrangian according to the variations of
calculus.
L = (H R + p c^2) sqrt(-det(g^ij))
Where
** L = Hilbert's Lagragian
** R = Ricci scalar
** p = density of matter
** det() = determinant of the matrix as operand
** H = a constant
Hilbert then went on to take the partial derivative of this Lagrangian
with respect to each element of the metric represented by g^ij and
setting it to zero.
@L/@g^ij = H sqrt(-det(g^ij)) @R/@g^ij - H R @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-
det(g^ij)) / 2 - p c^2 @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-det(g^ij)) / 2 = 0
Where (mathematical identity)
** @R/@g^ij = R_ij
** @det(g^ij)/@g^ij = g_ij det(g^ij)
The result is the set of Einstein field equations.
R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2
Or
G_ij = T_ij
Where
** G_ij = R_ij - R g_ij / 2
** T_ij = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2
Einstein played no role. His rediscovery of the equivalence principle
also finds no role in the derivation. The derivation of GR is totally
based on mathematical nonsense.
Very soon after the introduction of the field equations, Schwarzschild
discovered the following static and spherically symmetric solution
(metric).
ds^2 = c^2 (1 – R / (r^3 + R^3)^(1/3)) dt^2 – r^4 dr^2 / (r^3 + R^3) /
((r^3 + R^3)^(1/3) – R) – (r^3 + R^3)^(2/3) dO^2
Where
** R = G M / c^2
** dO^2 = cos^2Phi dTheta^2 + dPhi^2
There are actually an infinite number of solutions (metric) to the
field equations using the same set of coordinate system. The most
popular one was derived by Hilbert in 1916 now called the
Schwarzschild metric.
ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 R / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 R / r) – r^2 dO^2
Notice Schwarzschild’s original solution does not manifest black holes
but Schwarzschild metric does. The following solution also as simple
as the Schwarzschild metric does not manifest black holes as well.
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / ( 1 + 2 R / r) – (1 + 2 R / r) dr^2 – (r + R)^2 dO^2
Although not all the static and spherically symmetric solutions
degenerate to Newtonian law of gravity, all these three metrics above
do. This means the universe must be expanding and finally collapsing
back to itself. After observing the universe to be static, Einstein
correctly identified the field equations and Newtonian law of gravity
as not fit this observation. He cleverly introduced (pull out of his
*ss) a negative mass density to counter the attraction of gravity.
The reason is very simple. Positive mass manifests attraction in
gravity; negative mass manifests repulsion in gravity. In order to
hide the embarrassment of introducing negative mass in vacuum, he
again cleverly called this quantity as the Cosmological constant. The
development of GR at this stage is a total joke, but the nonsense did
not end here. Friedman, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker discovered a
non-static but spherically symmetric solution to the field equations
called the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric.
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 – a^2 (dr^2 / (1 – r^2 / R^2) + r^2 dO^2)
Where
** a = Function of t only
** R = Constant
This means two of the field equations are
** (da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p / 3
** 2 d^2a/dt^2 / a + (da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p
We can very easily solve these differential equations.
If R^2 >= 0,
** a^2 = c^2 cosh^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** p = 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)
If R^2 < 0,
** a^2 = - c^2 cos^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** p = - 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)
Where
** w, T = Integration constants
The density of the universe, p, must always remain constant. This
means the universe must be static as observed back then. Even with
the introduction of the Cosmological constant, the basic form of the
solution above remains the same. The Cosmological becomes totally
useless. The introduction of the Cosmological constant is the only
blunder in Einstein’s contribution in GR.
There are two problems with this FLRW metric.
** There is no solution combining the Schwarzschild metric and the
FLRW metric. This means the FLRW metric does not satisfy the
Newtonian law of gravity. Gravity is not caused by a curvature in
spacetime in general but only the gravitational time dilation.
** When Lemaitre first then Hubble discovered the red shift of
distant galaxies, there is no remedy for the FLRW metric to satisfy
this observation even with the Cosmological constant.
There are so many problems with GR right from the start. The most
basic is even more embarrassing. Any diligent grade school children
can identify the mathematical relationship below.
Given that
A = B C
If (A = constant and B != 0), then (C = A / B).
This blunder came as early as during Ricci’s time when the Riemann
tensor which is merely a matrix was incorrectly identified as a tensor
which means invariance to any coordinate transformation. Similarly,
the metric is merely a matrix. Ricci deified the metric into a
tensor. Mathematically, this can easily be proven wrong.
We have two different geometries described by the same coordinate
system with two different metrics.
** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = g_ij dq^i dq^j
** ds'^2 = [g'] * [dq^2] = g'_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** ds^2 = Geometry #1
** ds'^2 = Geometry #2
** [g] = Metric #1
** [g'] = Metric #2
** [dq^2] = Coordinate system, same
** * = Dot/inner product of two matrices
Or we have the same geometry described below by different metrics and
different coordinate systems. One example involves the linearly
rectangular and the spherically symmetric polar coordinate systems.
** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = [g']* [dq'^2]
** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j = g'_ab dq'^a dq'^b
The geometry, ds^2, must be invariant due to obvious reason. The
choice of coordinate system, d[q^2], is observer dependent. This can
only mean the metric, [g], must also be observer dependent. The
metric, the Riemann, and the Ricci tensors cannot be tensors after
all. All solutions to the field equations must be unique and
independent of each one where all solutions must reference to the same
choice of coordinate system in describing vastly different invariant
geometries. What good is the set of field equations that can generate
an infinite numbers of solutions to describe infinitely different and
independent universes? What good is the set of field equations that
can either generate a solution that manifests black holes and also
ones that don’t?
* * * * Malicious Troll McCullough’s Stupid Question * * * *
The static and spherically symmetric solutions to the field equations
in general take one such form below.
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / R) – (1 + K / R) (dR/dr)^2 dr^2 – (R + K)^2
dO^2
Where
** R(r) = Function of r
** dO^2 = cos^2(Phi) dTheta^2 + dPhi^2
** K = Integration constant
** dr, dTheta, dPhi = Choiced coordinate system
Only if the following is true, you get the Schwarzschild metric.
** R = r - K
Where
** K = 2 G M / c^2
If the following is true, you get Schwarzschild’s original solution
which does not manifest any black holes.
** R = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) - K
If the following is true, you get another solution just as simple as
the Schwarzschild metric but without manifestation of black holes.
** R = r
If the following is true, you get a constantly expanding universe that
also obeys the Schwarzschild metric --- a trait that even the FLRW
metric fails to do so.
** R = r / (1 + r^2 / K / L)
Where
** L = Cosmic constant
If the following is true, you get an accelerated expanding universe.
** R = r / (1 + r^2 / K / L + r^3 / K / L / N)
Where
** L, N = Cosmic constants
Each of these solutions is uniquely independent of the others.
Claiming these solutions being the same is utter nonsense --- a
misunderstanding on your part of failure to understand the metric is
not a tensor but merely a matrix. In addition, the last two metrics
prove the Birkhoff’s theorem wrong.
rbwinn
Well, it is easy to make a statement, more difficult to prove one.
Here are the Galilean transformation equations:
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.
So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
scientists. They want to call that cesium clock t'. No, sorry, if
scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'. t' is
already defined to be t'=t. We refuse to do this, say scientists.
Well, then, play with your imaginary equations. They actually do
give you a fairly accurate answer. However, to find out what time on
the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
variable n'.
n'=t(1-v/c)
This makes scientists unhappy because someone has called "scientific
time" by something other than t'. However, it is not difficult to
look at the answers obtained and see that n' gives the correct answer
for time on the cesium clock in S'.
At v=.9c, n' in the above equation gives a time of .1 sec if t= 1
sec., and t' in the Lorentz equations gives a time of .23 seconds.
Therefore the Lorentz equation clock is slightly faster than n'
calculated from the Galilean transformation equations, and x' is a
slightly longer distance than x' calculated from the Galilean
transformation equations. Therefore there is a distance contraction.
No, scientists, there is not a distance contraction if you use the
correct time. If the cesium clock in S' has the slower time of n',
then x' in the Galilean transformation equations is exactly the right
coordinate, there is no distance contraction, and relativity of time
is successfully explained.
However, we need to look at the situation realistically.
Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations has been a cash cow
for scientists since it was thought of as a means of extracting public
revenues from governments for research. What are they going to do
now, say that they have the wrong equations and that the answer was a
simple matter of using the correct high school algebra?
I do not think so. They will do what witches in the past have
always done. They will claim to have superior knowledge, refuse to
discuss it, and continue to use it for their personal profit.
That makes scientists of today something different from what
Einstein and scientists of his time were, people who were actually
seeking an answer to a scientific question. Scientists of today are
people trying to defend a cash cow, not people trying to discover
principles of physics.
So having correct equations in this environment is more difficult
as far as getting them accepted than people in the past who discovered
scientific principles have encountered. For example, Galileo only had
to convince religious bigots that the earth rotated on its axis, not
scientists trying to protect an economic advantage they have nurtured
for a century. Convincing religious bigots is much easier.
It is not difficult for any thinking person to see what scientists
are doing. If the velocity of S', a moving frame of reference, is .9c
relative to S, a frame of reference at rest, then if time on a cesium
clock in S is 1 second, the Lorentz equations give an answer of .23
sec. for time on a cesium clock in S', while n' derived from the
Galilean transformation equations shows a time of .1 sec for the
cesium clock in S'.
Obviously, the slightly faster rate of the Lorentz equation clock
will give a larger value for x', requiring a distance contraction to
put x' where n' shows x' in the Galilean transformation equations to
be.
This is not difficult for anyone to see who considers it, which we
have to acknowledge that scientists have already done. Therefore,
scientists have made their choice already and are not going to
change. They have chosen to support the profitable,(for them),
interpretation of the Lorentz equations that Einstein gave them, since
it is sufficiently confusing to almost everyone to allow them to
continue to claim that only they are capable of understanding such a
complicated subject as relativity, and the government, (the people),
should give them increasingly large amounts of money from public
revenues for "research".
How would it look for them to say that a mistake in high school
algebra is the cause of all of this?
Robert B. Winn
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> > This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
> > to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?
>
> That's you! Hahahahahaha
Well, after I have pointed that out. My one-star ratings for the
following post drastically reduced from 38 to 2.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/10f71d409fd43d8b
However, the next post picked up 18 one-stars. Does this stupid-cat-
in-chicken-costume aka Dono work for Google or something? If not, has
he hacked the Google system?
Dono
> On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> > > This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
> > > to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?
>
> > That's you! Hahahahahaha
>
> Well, after I have pointed that out. My one-star ratings for the
> following post drastically reduced from 38 to 2.
>
>
> However, the next post picked up 18 one-stars. Does this stupid-cat-
> in-chicken-costume aka Dono work for Google or something? If not, has
> he hacked the Google system?
rbwinn
You can use anything you choose to measure time in a coordinate
system. I use photons. x=ct, x'=cn' You scientists claim that
cesium clocks in S' are "special" because they are called "scientific
time" by scientists, so you have decreed that they can only be called
t' in equations. Well, that is nice, but hardly realistic. For
instance, I took the Galilean transformation equations and said that
time on a cesium clock in S' was n', where n'=x'/c.
As I have said many times, if you scientists think you can prove
that the Galilean transformation equations do not describe relativity
as scientists describe it according to their experiments, go ahead and
show the proof.
At v=.9c, a time of t= 1 sec shows .23 sec in S' according to the
Lorentz equations and a time of .1 sec according to n' and the
Galilean transformation equations. It is not difficult to see where
you scientists get your precious distance contraction. The faster
rate of a Lorentz equation clock makes x' a longer distance, requiring
a distance contraction to put x'Lorentz at the same point as x' in the
Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
Generally, every "kook" has some legitimate complaint about Einstein's
mathematics. As far as I know, I am the only "kook" who can work the
same mathematics without any mistakes.
Robert B. Winn
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
> [...]
>> Mind this bit:
>>
>> "In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
>> members of the public who are interested in science and
>> even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
>> about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
>> tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
>> to have the reasons explained to them."
>
> expectation of the orthodox supporters - the perfect
> outcome. Not, in fact, only the favourite, but the only
> one to be even allowed on considered at all!
Except that some of we defenders of established science keep
reading the kooks posts, and pointing out the actual and
definite errors.
> I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
> self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
> a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.
Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.
Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
yourself demonstrate.
> Could it ever be that I simply disagree?
Yes we disagree, and in some sense the issue is is simple. What
a scientific theory predicts is *not* a matter of opinion.
> Oh dear! Never! Impossible! Such
> a concept is beyond the horizon.Inconceivable!
> The so-called kooks thus have no monopoly on self-inflicted
> blindness. In spite of any physics or mathematical
> intelligence they may have, the orthodox supporters
> totally fail in any capacity to understand that humans
> are autonomous beings with autonomous minds, and
> that this fact cannot be 'corrected' by the magic of
> incantations like 'kook', 'crackpot', and the like.
'Kook' and 'crackpot' were not attempts at correction. Such
attempts had already failed on you, Alen.
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
Good that you understand that much. You've posted a lot of novel
science, while any proof or evidence remains to be seen.
> Here are the Galilean transformation equations:
>
> x'=x-vt
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=t
Agreed.
> What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
> then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.
What a mess.
The equations pertain to events identifiable in space and time, and
to two coordinate systems in which me can specify positions in space
and time. Call the coordinate systems S and S'; for any event, if
(x, y, z, t) are the coordinate of that event in S, then
(x', y', z', t') are, by definition, the coordinates of that same
event in S'.
The equations further assume that the origins of the coordinate
systems coincide. An event at (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) in S has
coordinates (x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0) in S'. Furthermore, the axis
of the two systems must be parallel; and any movement of one
coordinate system with respect to the other must be entirely in
the x direction (same as the x' direction); and such movement must
be uniform, meaning constant velocity.
There is no particular reference to the element cesium in the
Galilean transformation. The element was discovered in 1860, some
218 yeas after Galileo's death. The coordinate system has a time
dimension; a cesium clock is relevant insofar as it measures that
dimension, and no farther.
> So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
> scientists.
No, scientists insist on saying things unambiguously, accurately,
and precisely as possible.
> They want to call that cesium clock t'.
Mr. Winn has that wrong. Scientists understand t' is, by definition,
the time axis in S'.
> No, sorry, if
> scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
> time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'. t' is
> already defined to be t'=t. We refuse to do this, say scientists.
The world in Winn's head has diverged so far from the real one -- and
his idea of scientific understanding has gone so wrong, that we can do
nothing better than put a big red X through Winn's ramblings. To learn
what scientists say, listen to scientists.
> Well, then, play with your imaginary equations. They actually do
> give you a fairly accurate answer. However, to find out what time on
> the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
> transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
> variable n'.
>
> n'=t(1-v/c)
The Galilean transformation has no "n'", and such is greatly to the
credit of the Galilean transformation.
-Bryan
Winn went on...
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> > > This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
> > > to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?
>
> > That's you! Hahahahahaha
>
> Well, after I have pointed that out. My one-star ratings for the
> following post drastically reduced from 38 to 2.
>
>
> However, the next post picked up 18 one-stars. Does this stupid-cat-
> in-chicken-costume aka Dono work for Google or something? If not, has
> he hacked the Google system?
If you actually cared what people thought of you, you would have
changed your behavior years ago.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 27, 1:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:54 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 7:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-> > > > "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> > > > relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> > > > outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> > > > a fake?"
>
> > > Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
> > > of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
> > > concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.
>
> > > Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
> > > establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
> > > reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
> > > theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
> > > area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.
>
> > > Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
> > > objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
> > > theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
> > > in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
> > > scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
> > > groups.
>
> > Relativity has survived four generations of physicists. Try another
> > asinine argument.
>
> > > I think Relativists are the ones who do the most harm to Relativity,
> > > not the cranks and the cooks. String theopry is the new religion,
> > > Relativity is dying.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > P.S Dirt, after solving for the relativistic golden ration , this is
> > > the best you could come up with? How about showing that according to
> > > relativity, someone can know the lotto numbers before they are drawn?
>
> > > > The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
> > > > known names.
>
> > > > Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
> > > > a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
> > > > of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
> > > > newsgroup...
>
> > > > Enjoy reading,
> > > > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> evaluate any argument at all? You are a stoopid high school dropout
> who does not know calculus while at the same time exgibits all the
> characteristics of a crackpot, although you have not exposed yourself
> completely yet. This post proves who you are:
>
> http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c...
>
> There are other places you can jerk off, why sci.physios groups you
> little imbecile?
u mad?
>
> Mike
Eric Gisse
> cow to get money from public revenues. I do not think we are going to
> see any change in that practice any time soon.
> Robert B. Winn
Robert, I know nothing of welding.
Am I qualified to tell other people how to weld and explain how the
technology has developed, along with all the errors they made along
the way that only I can see?
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 26, 10:39 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 9:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> > > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Nice read:
> > > > > ? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> > > > > ? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
> > > > > ? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
> > > > > ? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
> > > > > ? ? a fake?"
>
> > > > > The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
> > > > > known names.
>
> > > > > Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
> > > > > a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
> > > > > of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
> > > > > newsgroup...
>
> > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > > >Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.
>
> > > > Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
> > > > mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
> > > > very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
> > > > since Isaac Newton.
>
>
> > > No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors [...]
>
> > Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
> > algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
> > laugh.- Hide quoted text -
>
> It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
> kind of things Einstein was trying to do. If simple algebra describes
> the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
> likely to be correct.
> Robert B. Winn
You can't even grasp why your additions to the Galilean
transformations contradict t' = t, or even what t' = t means. You have
no standing to claims about errors in algebra.
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice read:
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
>
> "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Alen
> > self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
> > a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.
>
> Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
> case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
> see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
> otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
> wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.
>
> Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
> something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
> yourself demonstrate.
Not at all! In your view, yes, that may well be what I
demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
me that I should 'correct' myself. My alternative to
Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
as I am concerned. I am under no obligation to satisfy
the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
I suggest an alternative. But this stance of mine
appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.
Alen
Mike
So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?
Be explicit.
Also, be aware that the constancu of the speed of light applies in all
globally inertial reference frames.
In the presence of mass-energy, spacetime curves, according to Dr. AL,
of course, and locally, that portion fo spacetime is not a inertial
frame. So the constancy of the speed of light does nto apply in that
case.
" Now [we] YOU might HAVE THOUGHT [think] that as a consequence of
this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
case ALTHOUGH MANY CRANKS WILL BELIVE SO"
Mike
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a good way to start for you too, I agree.
Mike
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:b1fd38f4-b8f3-4372...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| Alen
Take the stupid kook up on it.
The theory predicts two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
exactly that.
rbwinn
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough. I understand what you are saying. You are a
respected scientist and Party member, and you are not going to say
anything that all other scientists do not say because you might be
criticized if you did. So, why don't you run along and talk to the
other scientists now?
Here is something that you might want to consider. At v=.9c, if t=
1 sec., then the Lorentz equations show that t'=.23 sec, and the
Galilean transformation equations show that time on a cesium clock in
S' would be .1 sec. Notice that I did not say n'. If a cesium clock
in S' shows light to be traveling at 186,000 miles per second, then we
can say that
x=ct
x' = c(time measured by a cesium clock in S')
Consequently, the faster clock shown by the Lorentz equations will
give a larger value for x' at v=.9c than is shown by time measured by
a cesium clock in S'. What do you think that scientists might do if
they have a larger value for x' than mathematics actually shows?
Why, of course, they will use a distance contraction to put x'
where it should be relative to S.
So the distance contraction is not really as mysterious as
scientists have tried to pretend it is. It is just a mistake in
mathematics.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
>
Well, I guess there is only one way to find out. Go apply for a job
as an inspector. They would probably hire you since you have all of
that education.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
t'=t means you cannot call time on a cesium clock in S' by the
variable t' if scientists are right about a cesium clock in S' running
slower than an identical clock in S. You believe that calling time on
a cesium clock in S' by n' is disrespectful to scientists because they
were calling time on a cesium clock in S' "scientific time" and were
using the variable t'.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
By my calculations, it would take a scientist of today centuries to
learn even the most basic principle of relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Pentcho Valev
Because, since the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), it also
varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer,
v, in accordance with the EQUIVALENT equation c'=c+v. Your Dr. Al knew
that and clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult also know that
but unfortunately zombies like you are not even able to notice the
problem, let alone solving it.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Interesting logical leap there, Pentcho. Care to explain how c' =
c(1+V/c^2) [which by the way is incorrectly transcribed by you, but
let's set that aside for now] in a gravitational field then implies c'
= c + v, the source-speed dependence of c?
Or are you willing to also claim that c' = c(1+V/c^2) also implies
that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, and that it also
implies that you were unfairly removed from your job?
Mike
Can you please explain what your equations mean and how they are
related? Also, what is an EQUIVALENT equation?
I'm afraid to say you do not make sense at all. This is quite peculiar
for someone who knows how to log in to send messages to a newsgroup.
Mike
Pentcho Valev
How many times should I explain the same thing:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ea3670cd4be31593?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ad65ba5bedb830a9?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the eqution c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light (have you ever noticed these two
equations?) are EQUIVALENT in the sense that, if you start from the
one and apply Einstein's EQUIVALENCE principle, you obtain the other.
You have never noticed the texbook problem involving a tower (presence
of a gravitational field) and an accelerating rocket (absence of a
gravitational field), have you?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, it is very much the case.
Since we also we invented robots in honor of Einstein.
Since he apparently the first phycist since Maxwell
who knew what "in vaccuo" meant.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
BradGuth
Lots of power groups that are not hardly smart enough to blow their
own nose, but otherwise collectively rich and in control of far more
than their fair share, have been known to select upon a likely
candidate that'll make for a good enough puppet that'll work nicely on
their behalf. Why not Einstein?
. - Brad Guth
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
> [...]
>>> I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
>>> self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
>>> a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.
>> Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
>> case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
>> see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
>> otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
>> wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.
>>
>> Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
>> something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
>> yourself demonstrate.
>
> Not at all! In your view, yes, that may well be what I
> demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
> thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
> otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
> me that I should 'correct' myself.
You are under no imperative to correct your error, that's true.
You attributed to the the orthodox theory a prediction that it
does not make. I'm not saying you have to correct it; I'm saying
not correcting it demonstrates the "won't learn" trait.
> My alternative to
> Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
> SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
> as I am concerned.
"As far as I am concerned"... ah, I see.
> I am under no obligation to satisfy
> the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
> I suggest an alternative. But this stance of mine
> appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
> to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
> don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
> like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.
And you will not grasp that you got a physics problem wrong. The
theory does not predict what you thought it does.
--
--Bryan
Alen
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> | Not at all! In your view, yes, that may well be what I
> | demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
> | thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
> | otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
> | me that I should 'correct' myself. My alternative to
> | Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
> | SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
> | as I am concerned. I am under no obligation to satisfy
> | the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
> | I suggest an alternative. But this stance of mine
> | appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
> | to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
> | don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
> | like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.
>
> | Alen
>
> Take the stupid kook up on it.
> The theory predicts two observers *in the same place* will each
> see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
> exactly that.
You might try to argue that, but I think they will come
back with the supposed permanent nonsimultaneity
relationship between inertial frames, or use a third reference
frame, or both, and you will then have to contest that, etc.
Since I dispute Minkowski spacetime for fundamental reasons,
I have little interest in engaging in arguments about what
it says about anything. Obviously, if a theory is false, then
the solutions it gives to particular problems automatically
become irrelevant, and a waste of time.
Alen
Bryan Olson
> Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
> that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
> the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
> emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.
> I understand what you are saying. You are a
> respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.
--
--Bryan
Bob
And so I unsubscribe to this ridiculous group.
Androcles
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1b453aa0-45f7-416b...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Ok, well, nevertheless the theory SPECIFICALLY predicts two
observers *in the same place* will each see the other to be younger.
I don't need to argue it, I can point it out and say "here it is, look".
Your argument is to simply deny it, leading to the pantomime:
Oh yes it does!
Oh no it doesn't!
ad infinitum.
Here it is, look:
"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2t v^2/c^2 second slow"
It'll be 1/2t v^2/c^2 years slow by now too.
Fundamentally,
The speed of light from A to B is c-v and the time taken is tau.
The speed of light from B to A is c+v and the time taken is tau.
Kook Einstein said so and that's what his crank equations are for.
Minkowski is just the tail wagging the dog.
Here it is, look:
" we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If A is Earth and B is Saturn, the time is 1 hour and 10 minutes.
The Cassini spacecraft is currently there, JPL have not been shouting
about how the proved Einstein right. They've got more sense.
But ok, Alen, you argue with the kook that he's wrong, you'll both enjoy it
more than proving it and getting on to real physics.
Don Stockbauer
************************************************
It's much, much worse than anyone could possibly imagine.
He was just a cardboard cutout.
rbwinn
Spoken like a scientist. Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.
Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 28, 7:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
> > was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
> > carefully:
>
> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
> > Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
> > to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
> > velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
> > fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
> > which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
> > validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
> > velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
> > think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
> > and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
> > But in reality this is not the case."
>
> Well, it is very much the case.
> Since we also we invented robots in honor of Einstein.
> Since he apparently the first phycist since Maxwell
> who knew what "in vaccuo" meant.
Is this a joke? Einstein through his only contribution in science
gave us the Cosmological constant. The concept subscribes to negative
mass density in vacuum. It is utterly absurd. Yet, it does not
prevent physicists from swallowing this bullsh*t after faithfullyh
equating it to negative energy density in vacuum as if they do no
longer understand (E = m c^2).
Any robot built in honor of Einstein also represent the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar in Einstein and of the following Orwelling
qualities.
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** FAITH IS THEORY
** CONJECTURE IS TRUTH
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** LYING IS TEACHING
BradGuth
>
> And so I unsubscribe to this ridiculous group.
Are we having another bad Usenet/Group kind of day?
As puppets of the past, present and future tend to go, why not
Einstein?
This isn't saying that Einstein wasn't a very smart puppet.
. - Brad Guth
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Light moves at c in slower time.
Mitch Raemsch
Bryan Olson
Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.
> Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.
--
--Bryan
Eric Gisse
Except you aren't using them - you are using them in addition to some
crap you have added.
> Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
Why ask the question when you won't understand the answer?
> Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
does in S. The Sun rotates on its axis the same number of times in S'
as it does in S. The planets revolve around the sun the same number
of times in S' as they do in S. So how is t' different in S' than in
S?
Robert B. Winn
Bryan Olson
Robert, *you* came up with n' for time measured in S', and *your* n'
does not equal t in general. "How" time is different between frames
is an interesting question (which has a well-established answer that
many of us have tried to explain in this newsgroup), but you
contradict Galileo's theory regardless of that issue.
Contradicting Galileo's transform makes sense. His theory turns out
not to hold when |v| is a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Accepting Galileo's transform can also make sense. Considering the
objects we encounter, "v << c" holds with few exceptions. Galileo
never had the chance to observe the phenomena that motivated
development of the Lorentz transform and special relativity.
What makes no sense is to do both simultaneously. To assert that
time measured in S' will be n', while also holding that time in S'
is t'=t, makes sense if and only if n'=t'=t in general. Robert, in
your system n' does not equal t' in general.
--
--Bryan
rbwinn
No, Bryan, the earth rotates the same number of degrees whether
observed fro S or S', the sun rotates the same number of degrees
whether observed from S or S'. You do have this cesium clock running
slower in S' than an identical clock in S. If a clock is running
slower or faster, it can still be used with the Galilean
transformation equations. You just have to determine the rate of the
clock compared to t'.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
than an identical clock in S. That means that it cannot be called t'
in the Galilean transformation equations. Sorry, you would have to
use a clock that is showing exactly the same time as a cesium clock in
S. If you do not have a clock like that and are too lazy to construct
one the way Eric Gisse and PD are, you might want to look at the
cesium clock in S. That shows what a t' clock in S' would show. As
for the slower clock in S', you will have to call the time on that
clock by some other variable than t' if you want to use the Galilean
transformation equations. This is really a moot point at this
particular time, because I am fairly sure that there are no scientists
who want to used the Galilean transformation equations. Just go ahead
and use the Lorentz equations if that is what you want to do.
Robert B. Winn
Bryan Olson
Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that time measured
in S' is not equal to t.
> Sorry, you would have to
> use a clock that is showing exactly the same time as a cesium clock in
> S. If you do not have a clock like that and are too lazy to construct
> one the way Eric Gisse and PD are, you might want to look at the
> cesium clock in S. That shows what a t' clock in S' would show. As
> for the slower clock in S', you will have to call the time on that
> clock by some other variable than t' if you want to use the Galilean
> transformation equations. This is really a moot point at this
> particular time, because I am fairly sure that there are no scientists
> who want to used the Galilean transformation equations. Just go ahead
> and use the Lorentz equations if that is what you want to do.
The choice is not arbitrary. We want to get things right.
--
--Bryan
rbwinn
Well, the Lorentz equations will give you a fairly close approximation
of the time on the cesium clock in S'. It will be accurate enough to
do anything that scientists of this particular time are going to do.
Robert B. Winn