Falsifying GR is Easy!
Charles Cagle
pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really understand
the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
See, nitwits like Speicher are equipped with pseudoknowledge, not
actual understanding, so their arrogant chitter chattering can be
brushed aside as the tripe that it is. They don't understand the
nature of gravity. They don't have a damned clue about how to unify
electromagnetism and gravity or the quantum world and gravity. Face
it, if the sons of bitches in mainstream physics are trying to find out
if an antineutrino has mass or not or if a photon has mass or not then
they don't understand the nature of mass nor do they truly understand
the neutrino or antineutrio or photons.
So, the first step in showing that the EP is falsified is to show that
a gravitational field must treat electrons differently than it treats
protons and neutrons. In other words we'd need to show that if both
particles (say an electron and a proton) are present in a monolithic
(single source) gravitational field that protons will accumulate along
the terminus axis while electrons will be excluded from the terminus
axis or that protons will repel electrons in a gravitational field but
that they won't do this in a uniformly accelerated frame.
Of course, a dumb ass like Speicher might not realize that
gravitational sources have structure and he probably thinks that
protons are a gravitational field source so in his fuzzy headed
conception he might suppose that a monolithic gravitational field must
be point-like, especially if he believes that protons are point-like.
What about electrons? If they have mass then I'll bet Speicher
suspects that they also must be the source of a tiny gravitational
field. If he thinks that then he'd have to suppose that such a
gravitational source must be point-like. Now he'll have to confirm
for us what he thinks and unfortunately for him he doesn't have much
data to back him up no matter what he thinks so you can bet he's going
to be buzzing around not on the solid fuel of real scientific knowledge
but rather on the fumes of decaying pseudoscientific bullshit.
So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
they are facts. Arrogant fools like Speicher are not privy to the
facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't
worry though, he's only saying that because he doesn't know what he's
talking about and he's prone to projection. A non-moving proton is not
a monolithic gravitational source. A non-moving electron is not a
monolithic gravitational source. However, a neutron, whether it is
moving or not is a monolithic gravitatational source. A photon is a
monolithic gravitational source.
A gravitational field is a time-rate gradient field which is to say
that one can use the heuristic model of depicting a monolithic
gravitational source as having onion peel layers of gravitational
equipotential surfaces where clocks on a given surface are all
synchronized but that from the viewpoint of an outside observer clocks
closer to the gravitational terminus run slower and clocks further away
from the gravitational terminus run faster.
Now all that remains is to show that if you can get elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law and you've
effectively falsified the Equivalence Principle because the effect of a
time gradient field upon particles is that it will get them to overlap
in momentum space from the viewpoint of any outside observer as they
near the terminus region of a monolithic gravitational source.
Now it isn't really hard to show that if you can get elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
I'll save that for a subsequent posting if people are interested.
But the first experimental data that shows that the EP is falsified is
photo ionization. Here we have a photon which is a monolithic
gravitational source and as it overlaps the nucleus and an electron of
an atom it causes them overlap in momentum space and then they become
strongly repulsively interactive. Because of the mass difference the
electron gets the lion's share of the velocity and hence energy.
If you get photons of the right wavelength so that they can overlap
multiple nuclei as in a fusion weapon which has soft x-rays overlapping
the nuclei then not only do you get the phenomenon of opposite charges
repelling one another (so you get photo ionization) but that you get
same charges (the nuclei [deuterons]) strongly attractively
interactive. Bang, you get fusion. But the fusion isn't working
because somehow the nuclei are being slammed into one another but
rather because by forcing them to overlap in momentum space they
accelerate towards a common null motion gradient produced by the
intersection of large numbers of pairs of vector fields produced by
their relative motion with respect to large numbers of other particles
in the universe.
This is actually so easy to prove that bright highschoolers can catch
on right away. Note* (One has to get them before they go off to
college and learn a bunch of bullshit that isn't true.) In fact, any
honest person who understands the evolution of vector fields related to
the relative motion of elementary charged particles can catch on. I
said "honest", because honesty isn't a criteria for becoming a
pseudophysicist like Speicher. In other words, I could build a logical
trap where a fellow like Speicher would be forced to agree point by
point and bring him right to a certainty for a conclusion using
deductive logic and principles he already accepts but the conclusion
will freak him out because he's never actually done physics in a honest
straightforward manner. So he'll buck over the fence and go into
rampant denial mode. I've seen it happen more than once to mainstream
physicists. I took this same argument to a researcher at the Univ. of
Washington and caught him off guard. All he could do tug at his beard
and mutter over and over again 'something's got to be wrong with this'
as he walked back and forth in front of the black board where I'd put
up a couple of simple equations from standard textbooks and applied
some correct logic. Of course, this fellow, Robert Brooks, who was
playing the part of a welfare queen in a white coat sucking up a DOE
grant for fusion research, couldn't escape the logic so he simply was
forced to go into denial because the facts contradicted his
pseudoscientific beliefs. When a newsman interviewed him on the
subject a few days later he could only mutter that it was his 'gut
feeling' that my argument 'was not going to fly'. That's what
pseudoscientists actually do when you catch them by the balls. They go
into denial and they eruct nonsensical irrational comments that in no
way can be considered to be rational statements of actual knowledge.
Then the sons of bitches fade away and you have to deal with the next
arrogant prick like I'm presently dealing with this halfwit Speicher.
You see none of these sons of bitches have a bit of integrity so even
when you shove the truth down their throat and they see no escape they
are forced to escape mentally which is that they go into denial and
can't deal with it.
How about it, Speicher, you arrogant prick? Do you want to take me on?
Now if you don't then why don't you quit posting here? Because if you
can't or won't take me on then you're nothing but a pissy little
coward. Oh, and you can bring all your CalTech buddies and mentors and
the whole flock of other pseudoscientists that you hang out with to the
show and have them standing by for backup so I'm saying you don't even
have to do your own work. Are you feeling lucky, punk? Well, do you?
Now, Stephen, please don't be offended by my tone; actually I can't see
how you could be since you're such a ill mannered arrogant prick of a
person yourself so I'm only addressing you in the manner and with the
civility that you address others. So how about it punk? Do you feel
lucky today?
Charles Cagle
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com>...
> You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> Face
> it, if the sons of bitches in mainstream physics are trying to find out
> if an antineutrino has mass or not or if a photon has mass or not then
> they don't understand the nature of mass nor do they truly understand
> the neutrino or antineutrio or _photons.
"or photons"
[snip]
> So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> they are facts. Arrogant fools like Speicher are not privy to the
> facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
> he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't
> worry though, he's only saying that because he doesn't know what he's
> talking about and he's prone to projection. A non-moving proton is not
> a monolithic gravitational source. A non-moving electron is not a
> monolithic gravitational source. However, a neutron, whether it is
> moving or not is a monolithic gravitatational source. A photon is a
> monolithic gravitational source.
" A photon is a monolithic gravitational source.
[snip]
> But the first experimental data that shows that the EP is falsified is
> photo ionization. Here we have a _photon_ which is a monolithic
> gravitational source and as it overlaps the nucleus and an electron of
> an atom it causes them overlap in momentum space and then they become
> strongly repulsively interactive. Because of the mass difference the
> electron gets the lion's share of the velocity and hence energy.
"a photon"
[snip]
> If you get _photons_ of the right wavelength so that they can overlap
> multiple nuclei as in a fusion weapon which has soft x-rays overlapping
> the nuclei then not only do you get the phenomenon of opposite charges
> repelling one another (so you get photo ionization) but that you get
> same charges (the nuclei [deuterons]) strongly attractively
> interactive. Bang, you get fusion.
"photons"
> But the fusion isn't working
> because somehow the nuclei are being slammed into one another but
> rather because by forcing them to overlap in momentum space they
> accelerate towards a common null motion gradient produced by the
> intersection of large numbers of pairs of vector fields produced by
> their relative motion with respect to large numbers of other particles
> in the universe.
Charles, the particle - photon does not exist in the Nature.
The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium. :^0 ;o)
The photon is mathematical abstraction, which in the implicit
(latent) form reflects existence of discrete power levels in
microsystems and as a corollary a capability of exchange by
electromagnetic energy between systems only by discrete portions.
The photon is mathematical abstraction, which allow us to calculate
probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field and substance.
You never can prove, that the microsystem absorbs or radiates
electromagnetic energy as particles-photons. This problem is
similar to a problem of a proof of existence of a God.
For this reason particles-photons are a problem of a Religious faith.
In all physicis text-books the photon passing
through both slot simultaneously is circumscribed.
Similar scientifically fancy fairy tale about an interference
of photons on two slots is adduced in the book:
Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
this fairy tale is refuted by experimental existence of a virtual
interference. ;o)
Spaceman
GR is wrong for the same reason SR is wrong.
Time is an abstract.
The End.
both GR and SR fail SCIENCE unit measurement standards.
Stop being so silly all you physics people.
SR and GR are wrong if you want "scientific" facts.
Bill Foley
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-11/msg0036668.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-11/msg0036707.html
http://singtech.com/Apocal.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes18.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-11/msg0036671.html
http://www.infocom.com/~thomil/magnet.htm
http://www.netwood.net/~edwin/sci/astro/blacklist.html
http://www.fusor.net/old-boards/intranets.com/history_news/msg-9642.html
http://www.mailgate.org/sci/sci.physics.fusion/msg09948.html
http://www.iinc.com/~flewhuey/192/roster.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/vsrtnews/apr95.htm
..........................................................
References:
Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity
From: Grace Shellac <furlong.phy...@singtech.com>
Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity
From: ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (Zeab Nhoj)
Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity
From: Grace Schalle <furlong.phy...@singtech.com>
Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity
From: ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez)
Note the singtech.com addresses Grace Shellac and
Grace Schalle.
Also see other Cagle/Shellac/Schalle references at
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-11/index3.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-05/
.........................................................
Bill Foley
astronomers, please remove sci.astro.amateur from your posts.
Thank you.
Paul Cardinale
> pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
>
> How can one do that?
>
<verbal excrement snipped>
Paul Cardinale
Charles Cagle
Foley <wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
Piss off, Foley.
You don't speak for _all_ amateur astronomers you stupid jackass so
quit posting your whines.
In fact, only a halfwit like you would suppose that important aspects
of physics are of no interest to amateur astronomers. There they are
night after night looking at the sky and the objects of their interests
(stars, galaxies, planets, comets, etc.) are fully "explained" in their
astro textbooks. The explanations happen to be mostly wrong,
especially about how stars work, how planets form and more. For you
to say that the correct information is of no interest to you is fine
but you really are one world class arrogant jackass of a person to
presume to speak for others. Each time you try to indicate that what I
write is of no interest to amateur astronomers you become a liar. You
speak only for yourself and for any friends who have given you
permission to speak for them but for all others, well, hell, Foley,
you're just a goddamned liar. Take your whines somewhere else, fool.
CC.
Martin Hogbin
"Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
>
> How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really understand
> the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
>
> See, nitwits like Speicher are equipped with pseudoknowledge, not
Understanding such as you alone have.
>so their arrogant chitter chattering can be
> brushed aside as the tripe that it is. They don't understand the
> nature of gravity. They don't have a damned clue about how to unify
> electromagnetism and gravity or the quantum world and gravity. Face
> it, if the sons of bitches in mainstream physics are trying to find out
> if an antineutrino has mass or not or if a photon has mass or not then
> they don't understand the nature of mass nor do they truly understand
> the neutrino or antineutrio or photons.
>
> So, the first step in showing that the EP is falsified is to show that
> a gravitational field must treat electrons differently than it treats
> protons and neutrons.
Yes, that would do the trick.
> In other words we'd need to show that if both
> particles (say an electron and a proton) are present in a monolithic
> (single source) gravitational field that protons will accumulate along
> the terminus axis while electrons will be excluded from the terminus
> axis or that protons will repel electrons in a gravitational field but
> that they won't do this in a uniformly accelerated frame.
>
I cannot understand that. What is the terminus axis?
>
> So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> they are facts.
How? This a really important question.
>Arrogant fools like Speicher are not privy to the
> facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
> he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Speicher uses the vast body of scientific evidence accumulated
over the centuries to support his case. What evidence supports
what you say?
<Snip>
> A gravitational field is a time-rate gradient field which is to say
> that one can use the heuristic model of depicting a monolithic
> gravitational source as having onion peel layers of gravitational
> equipotential surfaces where clocks on a given surface are all
> synchronized but that from the viewpoint of an outside observer clocks
> closer to the gravitational terminus run slower and clocks further away
> from the gravitational terminus run faster.
>
I left this bit in because it is so bad.
> Now all that remains is to show that if you can get elementary charged
> particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
> behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law and you've
> effectively falsified the Equivalence Principle
And you have done this (whatever it means)?
> Now it isn't really hard to show that if you can get elementary charged
> particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
> behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
>
> I'll save that for a subsequent posting if people are interested.
Not me.
>
<Snip>
Martin Hogbin
Mike H
> facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
> he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't
> worry though, he's only saying that because he doesn't know what he's
> talking about and he's prone to projection.
ROFL, this sounds exactly like one of those caricatured arguments you'd
see in a textbook about logical fallacies. :-)
As does the entirety of his post, actually..
Gordon D. Pusch
Bill Foley
> In article <4180bbb9.02052...@posting.google.com>, Bill
> Foley <wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > For your arguments involving matters not of any interest to amateur
> > astronomers, please remove sci.astro.amateur from your posts.
> > Thank you.
>
> Piss off, Foley.
>
the other SAA people on whether they do or do not want to see
half-baked pseudoscience like yours on this group. We are generally
aware of the other groups where your input is welcome, and can jump
over there easily to check on your posts if necessary.
So, please post elsewhere, and we will look there if we really want to
read your posts.
Thanks again.
Bill Foley
very major fallacies, and with the pseudonyms of Grace Shellac and
Grace Schalle, perhaps even phallucies.
jack sprat
> So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> they are facts.
Now Charles if you knew anything about science you would know that
there are no facts, just theories that explain all observations so
far. In other words nothing (outside of maths) can be proven to be
true, no matter how many times you test it. Try reading a bit of the
literature on the philosophy of science and try not to be so pompous.
Etherman
"Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
>
> How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really
understand
> the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
It's impossible actually. The EP holds locally for test particles in a
uniform gravitational field. Uniform gravitational fields don't exist.
Test particles don't exist. Local (i.e. at a point) experiments don't
exist. Any observed deviation from the EP will be blamed on one or
more of these facts.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Charles Cagle
<wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<270520021040438396%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > In article <4180bbb9.02052...@posting.google.com>, Bill
> > Foley <wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> > > For your arguments involving matters not of any interest to amateur
> > > astronomers, please remove sci.astro.amateur from your posts.
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > Piss off, Foley.
> >
> Sounds like YOU are the one who is pissed off. I welcome the input of
> the other SAA people on whether they do or do not want to see
> half-baked pseudoscience like yours on this group. We are generally
> aware of the other groups where your input is welcome, and can jump
> over there easily to check on your posts if necessary.
> So, please post elsewhere, and we will look there if we really want to
> read your posts.
> Thanks again.
Piss off, Foley, you aren't a 'we', you nitwit.
CC.
Charles Cagle
You can't admit to what you can't show, fool.
Charles Cagle
<donk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> >
> > How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really
> understand the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
>
> It's impossible actually. The EP holds locally for test particles in a
> uniform gravitational field.
That's not true at all or it is nonsensical chit chat. The
gravitational acceleration at any point is the vector sum, at that
point of all monolithic gravitational sources. What is generally not
understood is what constitutes a gravitational source; non-moving
charged particles do not. A photon is a monolithic gravitational
source structure and so is a neutron. The term 'uniform gravitational
field' is a bogus pseudoscientific term when you get right down to it
because a gravitational field is not a continuous structure.
> Uniform gravitational fields don't exist.
There you go, invalidating your first comment. If a uniform
gravitational field does not exist then the EP doesn't hold true for
test particles in a uniform gravitational field.
> Test particles don't exist. Local (i.e. at a point) experiments don't
> exist. Any observed deviation from the EP will be blamed on one or
> more of these facts.
More nonsense.
CC.
Charles Cagle
<wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<270520021040438396%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > In article <4180bbb9.02052...@posting.google.com>, Bill
> > Foley <wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> > > For your arguments involving matters not of any interest to amateur
> > > astronomers, please remove sci.astro.amateur from your posts.
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > Piss off, Foley.
> >
> Sounds like YOU are the one who is pissed off.
You're confused. Piss off means 'depart', or 'go away you fool' or
'stick your nonsense in your ear, nitwit' or sentiments to that effect.
I'm not angry at you at all...I'm amused that you continue to make a
fool of yourself by pretending to be the voice of a general consensus.
You aren't, so why don't you quit pretending? What is amusing is how
transparent you are and how utterly clueless about that transparency.
> I welcome the input of the other SAA people on whether they do or do
> not want to see half-baked pseudoscience like yours on this group.
Doesn't matter what your intellectual clones might want. Don't read my
posts, nitwit, if you don't like what I write. Pretty simple, eh? Put
me in your kill file. That should work for you - it works for me
(that you killfile me).
By your foolish protest posts you simply add to the traffic that you
apparently don't want to read. LOL.
> We are generally aware of the other groups where your input is
> welcome, and can jump over there easily to check on your posts if
> necessary. So, please post elsewhere, and we will look there if we
> really want to read your posts. Thanks again.
There you go again using 'We'. Perhaps you have a turd in your pocket?
CC.
Charles Cagle
Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
But there is data that contradicts it and it is ubiquitous, thus it has
already been falsified. You're just so ignorant about the nature of
gravity in the first place that you could be awash in the data and not
interpret it appropriately.
'Emperically' (sic)? Perhaps you meant 'empirically'? If you're
going to use those big words at least try to spell them correctly, eh?
:-).
CC.
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message news:<270520021040438396%pro...@singtech.com>...
>> In article <4180bbb9.02052...@posting.google.com>, Bill
>> Foley <wfo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For your arguments involving matters not of any interest to amateur
>> > astronomers, please remove sci.astro.amateur from your posts.
>> > Thank you.
>>
>> Piss off, Foley.
>>
>Sounds like YOU are the one who is pissed off. I welcome the input of
>the other SAA people on whether they do or do not want to see
>half-baked pseudoscience like yours on this group. We are generally
>aware of the other groups where your input is welcome,
Cagel's inputs are no-where welcome.
he is a religious crackpot.
w.
Charles Cagle
<sp...@hogbin.org> wrote:
> "Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> >
> > How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really understand
> > the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
> >
> > See, nitwits like Speicher are equipped with pseudoknowledge, not
> > actual understanding..
>
> Understanding such as you alone have.
Really? How did you come to the conclusion that I'm the only one who
understands this? Don't make nitwit statements or I'll stick your head
in them like the buckets of shit that they are.
> > so their arrogant chitter chattering can be
> > brushed aside as the tripe that it is. They don't understand the
> > nature of gravity. They don't have a damned clue about how to unify
> > electromagnetism and gravity or the quantum world and gravity. Face
> > it, if the sons of bitches in mainstream physics are trying to find out
> > if an antineutrino has mass or not or if a photon has mass or not then
> > they don't understand the nature of mass nor do they truly understand
> > the neutrino or antineutrio or photons.
> >
> > So, the first step in showing that the EP is falsified is to show that
> > a gravitational field must treat electrons differently than it treats
> > protons and neutrons.
>
> Yes, that would do the trick.
Great. You're part way up to speed, I see.
> > In other words we'd need to show that if both
> > particles (say an electron and a proton) are present in a monolithic
> > (single source) gravitational field that protons will accumulate along
> > the terminus axis while electrons will be excluded from the terminus
> > axis or that protons will repel electrons in a gravitational field but
> > that they won't do this in a uniformly accelerated frame.
> >
> I cannot understand that. What is the terminus axis?
A monolithic gravitational source is not point like but has structure.
Virtually any gravitational source is a loop and the 'terminus' of the
field (which means the boundary or limit) is at a closed line. So, a
monolithic gravitational source would produce a 'field' that would be
composed of gravitational equipotential surfaces of increasing
curvature as the terminus is approached (these are not true continuous
surfaces but the picture is useful as a heuristic device) inward
normals to which would terminate at the toroidal axis which is a closed
line and or/also the terminus axis. Monolithic gravitational sources
can exist at a variety of scales from the quantum to the macro scale
but the terminus will always be a closed line.
> > So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> > they are facts.
>
> How? This a really important question.
How do I know that they are facts? By doing the reseach, finding the
basic axioms, accumulating the observational and experimental data, and
applying a priori reasoning (deductive logic) to arrive at certainties.
People really should take a lesson from individuals like Euclid, Rene
Descartes, and Pascal. All of these men made significant
contributions to science and they all used axioms, observational and
experimental data, and applied a priori reasoning to arrive at
certainties. Descartes even wrote an essay on these procedures called
'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'. Most so-called scientists of
our modern age are, in fact, pseudoscientists who use a posteriori
reasoning and they completely ignore the role of epistemology in
science. Descartes vision of the pseudoscientist of his own day is
still appropriately applied to the mainstream so-called 'scientific
community' of our own day.
"Further, because they have believed that it was unbecoming for a man
of education to confess ignorance on any point, they have so accustomed
themselves to trick out their fabricated explanations, that they have
ended by gradually imposing on themselves and thus have issued them to
the public as genuine." [From 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'
Rule II, 2nd Paragraph. by Rene Descartes]
> > Arrogant fools like Speicher are not privy to the
> > facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
> > he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> Speicher uses the vast body of scientific evidence accumulated
> over the centuries to support his case.
Well, of course, he doesn't even if both you and think that he does.
He may use what both of you may call 'scientific evidence'. But the
term 'scientific evidence' really means 'knowledge related' evidence.
People are fond of using the term 'scientific evidence' and they don't
quite realize that this is one of the fallacies of their reasoning.
"Evidence", you see, is not the data but rather is only the subjective
interpretation of the data. So when people pull out the old
'scientific evidence' trump card I really laugh in their face because
knowledge itself has a quality index or any person who genuinely
understands the limits and appropriate procedures of physical
investigations aimed at gaining a knowledge of the universe will insist
that knowledge has a quality index. In other words you may have what
you call knowledge about a subject but in fact the knowledge you have
may be wrong and hence it would then not properly be 'knowledge' after
all but really would be 'pseudoknowledge'. So, if data is incorrectly
interpreted then one has pseudoscientific evidence and not scientific
evidence as they may believe.
So, saying that Speicher uses the vast body of 'scientific evidence' is
pretty much a claim that I am disputing. I'm saying that much of what
he believes are facts are in reality not facts at all.
> What evidence supports what you say?
See, it's probably a habit of yours that you ask for 'evidence'. If
you really care about doing science right then you'll break yourself of
that habit because it really is a meaningless phrase. You ought to ask
something like "What data is there and in what way have you interpreted
that data so as to consider it to be a valid substantiation for your
case?" In the phrase 'in what way have you interpreted that data'
should be implied the idea that I have used a correctly formed
categorical syllogism with major and minor premises and have come to a
logical conclusion. Knowledge is not really 'knowledge' unless it is
certain. So you should form your questions to deal not with 'evidence'
but rather with the details of how I arrived at a particular deductive
conclusion. If you force yourself to do this sort of questioning then
you'll be better off in the long run. If you don't then you'll simply
remain a pseudoscientist asking silly questions that won't help you
discover the mysteries of the universe.
Next, I've said lots of things so if you are going to ask me a question
then you need to be specific. If you aren't prepared to ask specific
meaningful questions then you sure aren't ready for specific meaningful
answers.
> <Snip>
>
> > A gravitational field is a time-rate gradient field which is to say
> > that one can use the heuristic model of depicting a monolithic
> > gravitational source as having onion peel layers of gravitational
> > equipotential surfaces where clocks on a given surface are all
> > synchronized but that from the viewpoint of an outside observer clocks
> > closer to the gravitational terminus run slower and clocks further away
> > from the gravitational terminus run faster.
> >
>
> I left this bit in because it is so bad.
That's your opinion. But if you don't really understand a
gravitational field then you might find its actual description to be at
odds with any half baked concepts that you might have chosen to
entertain. See, if you don't know what is right then you're just
being an arrogant jackass by making value judgements about how I choose
to instruct you concerning a thing I know about but concerning which it
is a certainty that you do not.
> > Now all that remains is to show that if you can get elementary charged
> > particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
> > behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law and you've
> > effectively falsified the Equivalence Principle
>
> And you have done this (whatever it means)?
As you may know, the de Broglie wavelength of a particle is a defined
thing and it is given as lambda = h/mv where h is Planck's constant,
and m is mass and v is velocity. We can develop and use the concept
of a common de Broglie wavelength by considering that two elementary
charged particles that have relative motion will have a changing one
dimensional relationship between them and that we can distribute the
rate of change of that one dimensional relationship into parts to the
particles inversely proportional to the masses of the two particles.
In this way we calculate from a center of momentum frame a common de
Broglie wavelength. Now if that common de Broglie wavelength is equal
to or greater than the interparticle distance then we can say that they
are intersecting or overlapping in momentum space. Have I done it? Of
course, it is trivially easy to do. But unless you know that is what
you are causing to happen (as in an experiment) then you could be awash
in data that is consistent with your having produced conditions to
stimulate the overlapping of elementary charged particle in momentum
space and not have a clue that you have done this.
> > Now it isn't really hard to show that if you can get elementary charged
> > particles to overlap in momentum space that they will demonstrate
> > behavior contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
> >
> > I'll save that for a subsequent posting if people are interested.
>
> Not me.
Well, fine, Martin. You're not interested. You asked a couple of
questions and then it turns out that you're simply showboating. You
don't care about the answers. That kind of makes your entire posted
response pretty much an example of your disingenuousness.
> Martin Hogbin
CC.
Dennis Towne
>
> In article <64050551.02052...@posting.google.com>, Paul
> Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
> > Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:<260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> > >
> > > How can one do that?
> > >
> > Emperically. But there is no data that contradicts it. Thus it is not
> > falsified.
[snip]
> But there is data that contradicts it and it is ubiquitous, thus it has
> already been falsified. You're just so ignorant about the nature of
> gravity in the first place that you could be awash in the data and not
> interpret it appropriately.
Please post a description of an experiment the results of which
contradict the equivalence principle.
-dennis T
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> >
> > See, nitwits like Speicher are equipped with pseudoknowledge, not
> > actual understanding..
>
> Understanding such as you alone have.
>
Actually, Cagle is not completely alone since he is accompanied
by that Great Physicist in the Sky. Cagle claims his "physics was
taught to me by GOD."
(I should really peek at one of Cagle's posts once in a while,
instead of just deleting them. He really is good for a periodic
laugh.)
> >Arrogant fools like Speicher are not privy to the
> > facts so he's going to be a bit confused and unsure of himself and
> > he'll likely claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> Speicher uses the vast body of scientific evidence accumulated
> over the centuries to support his case. What evidence supports
> what you say?
>
Here's a short list of loony Cagle quotes which I posted a while
ago. Cagle makes quite clear what the source of his "evidence"
is.
"I say all these processes and discoveries are
integrated into a new physics paradigm which was taught
to me by GOD."
"Much, if not all of the of the data which I say
supports the paradigm which GOD has taught me"
"the whole of the matter was taught to me by the Living
GOD"
"am not claiming that I obtained to this insight
through any genius of my own but rather that it was
taught to me by the LIVING GOD Whom I serve."
"'This physics' means this "New and Apocalyptic
Physics" and no man taught this to me but GOD did."
"I have made no secret of the idea that GOD indeed has
taught me the physics I expound"
"I choose to acknowledge that ideas concerning the True
nature of the universe come to me from GOD"
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
A sign in Munich: "Heisenberg might have slept here."
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
~
cjm
> In article <LrFI8.3417$Oj7.6...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>, Etherman
> <donk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
> > > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> > >
> > > How can one do that? It's actually not hard if you really
> > understand the fundamental nature of a gravitational field.
> >
> > It's impossible actually. The EP holds locally for test particles in a
> > uniform gravitational field.
>
> That's not true at all or it is nonsensical chit chat. The
> gravitational acceleration at any point is the vector sum, at that
> point of all monolithic gravitational sources. What is generally not
> understood is what constitutes a gravitational source; non-moving
> charged particles do not.
Bullshit. What do you think constitutes most of the Sun? Hydrogen -
made up of a proton and an electron. Good thing they're heated to
several million Kelvin -- otherwise all that gravity would disappear!
> A photon is a monolithic gravitational
> source structure and so is a neutron.
Don't you just like fancy words to confound readers? Forget
monolithic. Use 'point source'.
You say point sources don't exist? Isaac Newton proved that the
gravitational field of a sphere is equivalent to that generated by a
point.
> The term 'uniform gravitational
> field' is a bogus pseudoscientific term when you get right down to it
> because a gravitational field is not a continuous structure.
You can get a uniform gravitational field in an accelerated frame of
reference.
>
> More nonsense.
More bullshit.
CJM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message news:280520020219174889%pro...@singtech.com...
> In article <actthp$fdg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Martin Hogbin
> <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>
> > "Charles Cagle" <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com...
[snip]
> >
> > > A gravitational field is a time-rate gradient field which is to say
> > > that one can use the heuristic model of depicting a monolithic
> > > gravitational source as having onion peel layers of gravitational
> > > equipotential surfaces where clocks on a given surface are all
> > > synchronized but that from the viewpoint of an outside observer clocks
> > > closer to the gravitational terminus run slower and clocks further away
> > > from the gravitational terminus run faster.
> > >
> >
> > I left this bit in because it is so bad.
>
> That's your opinion. But if you don't really understand a
> gravitational field then you might find its actual description to be at
> odds with any half baked concepts that you might have chosen to
> entertain. See, if you don't know what is right then you're just
> being an arrogant jackass by making value judgements about how I choose
> to instruct you concerning a thing I know about but concerning which it
> is a certainty that you do not.
It was a difficult choice, but this is what I'll take.
A Warm Welcome to:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "The time-rate gradient field closer to the gravitational terminus"
Dirk Vdm
booger
>
> You can't admit to what you can't show, fool.
meanie....
Phil
> In article <actthp$fdg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Martin Hogbin
> <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>
> > > So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> > > they are facts.
> >
> > How? This a really important question.
>
> How do I know that they are facts? By doing the reseach, finding the
> basic axioms, accumulating the observational and experimental data, and
> applying a priori reasoning (deductive logic) to arrive at certainties.
> People really should take a lesson from individuals like Euclid, Rene
> Descartes, and Pascal. All of these men made significant
> contributions to science and they all used axioms, observational and
> experimental data, and applied a priori reasoning to arrive at
> certainties. Descartes even wrote an essay on these procedures called
> 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'. Most so-called scientists of
> our modern age are, in fact, pseudoscientists who use a posteriori
> reasoning and they completely ignore the role of epistemology in
> science. Descartes vision of the pseudoscientist of his own day is
> still appropriately applied to the mainstream so-called 'scientific
> community' of our own day.
How on earth did you find out about this stuff? You damn sure didn't learn
about it in some class on "scientific reasoning." My own view or understanding
is that, as Aristotle pointed out some time ago, there are two systems of
thought. The first is "dialectic reasoning," the kind we use in debates,
politics, the social arena, etc. It works great for those situations! The
second is what Aristotle or Newton would have called "scientific reasoning," in
which conclusions about the structure of nature that causes events to turn out
the way they do are drawn, using valid logic, from the most certain, basic,
reliable facts. Modern scientists, having forgotten that there really are two
forms of reasoning, have fallen into the habit of using the rules of dialectic
to evaluate theories and to analyze nature, with horrible results. What a pity
that things like "everybody agrees with my argument" and "the argument is
internally consistent" tell us nothing about the argument's actual alignment
with reality.
However, I refer to modern scientists as "dialectic scientists" instead of
pseudoscientists, my thought being that they really are trying to understand
nature, even if they are using the rules and principles of dialectic, rather
than true science, to do so. Scientists were always my heroes, and it was quite
depressing to me when I found out just how crippled almost all of them really
are.
I have concentrated on relativity more than quantum mechanics, so I don't
understand much of what you say (or for that matter the more advanced math of
GR), but what I can understand does seem to necessarily follow from basic
truths, and is amazingly free of the usual dialectic crap. As a side comment,
you might enjoy at least the first few chapters of books by Thomas Sowell, who
can also think, especially "A Conflict of Visions."
Anyway, I really just wanted to drop a note saying how impressed I am to see
someone who actually understands the difference between true science and
dialectic science.
> "Further, because they have believed that it was unbecoming for a man
> of education to confess ignorance on any point, they have so accustomed
> themselves to trick out their fabricated explanations, that they have
> ended by gradually imposing on themselves and thus have issued them to
> the public as genuine." [From 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'
> Rule II, 2nd Paragraph. by Rene Descartes]
People like Newton and Descartes almost never made the kind of mistakes seen so
commonly today. What baffles me is why Aristotle's insights on both the
existence of and the differences between scientific and dialectic thinking
always seem to vanish after a few centuries. How could something that
fundamental and important be simply forgotten? My "fun explanation" is that
there really are alien beings whose sole goal is to insure that the human race
remains as stupid as possible.
Phil
Charles Cagle
> Charles Cagle wrote:
>
> > In article <actthp$fdg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Martin Hogbin
> > <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> > > > they are facts.
> > >
> > > How? This a really important question.
> >
> > How do I know that they are facts? By doing the reseach, finding the
> > basic axioms, accumulating the observational and experimental data, and
> > applying a priori reasoning (deductive logic) to arrive at certainties.
> > People really should take a lesson from individuals like Euclid, Rene
> > Descartes, and Pascal. All of these men made significant
> > contributions to science and they all used axioms, observational and
> > experimental data, and applied a priori reasoning to arrive at
> > certainties. Descartes even wrote an essay on these procedures called
> > 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'. Most so-called scientists of
> > our modern age are, in fact, pseudoscientists who use a posteriori
> > reasoning and they completely ignore the role of epistemology in
> > science. Descartes vision of the pseudoscientist of his own day is
> > still appropriately applied to the mainstream so-called 'scientific
> > community' of our own day.
>
> How on earth did you find out about this stuff? You damn sure didn't learn
> about it in some class on "scientific reasoning."
Study, research, caring about the truth more than anything, by being
willing to abandon any concept that cannot undergo the harsh light of
careful inspection, by realizing that intuition is the key to how one
knows a thing before they have established it by deductive logic and
that one must follow up the intuitive insight by careful deductive
steps. That is the only way that you can arrive at certainties.
<snip imprecise and inaccurate description of the appropriate way to
conduct scientific inquiry>
> Anyway, I really just wanted to drop a note saying how impressed I am to see
> someone who actually understands the difference between true science and
> dialectic science.
Thanks, I suppose.
> > "Further, because they have believed that it was unbecoming for a man
> > of education to confess ignorance on any point, they have so accustomed
> > themselves to trick out their fabricated explanations, that they have
> > ended by gradually imposing on themselves and thus have issued them to
> > the public as genuine." [From 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'
> > Rule II, 2nd Paragraph. by Rene Descartes]
CC.
Charles Cagle
<jacks...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > So let me put the facts out. I call them facts because I know that
> > they are facts.
>
> Now Charles if you knew anything about science you would know that
> there are no facts, just theories that explain all observations so
> far.
You're such a fool. You spout off your opinion and it turns out you
are trying to establish as a fact that there are not facts. Go away
you intellectually crippled nitwit.
> In other words nothing (outside of maths) can be proven to be
> true, no matter how many times you test it. Try reading a bit of the
> literature on the philosophy of science and try not to be so pompous.
Try not to write like a man with a paper rectum.
CC.
Paul Cardinale
> In article <64050551.02052...@posting.google.com>, Paul
> Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
> > Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:<260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> > >
> > > How can one do that?
> > >
> > Emperically. But there is no data that contradicts it. Thus it is not
> > falsified.
> >
> > <verbal excrement snipped>
> >
> > Paul Cardinale
>
> But there is data that contradicts it
A lie.
> and it is ubiquitous,
Another lie.
>thus it has already been falsified.
Third lie.
Falsification would require showing that a measured value is different
from what GR predicts. So far that hasn't happened.
You now have three options:
1. Admit that there is no data falsifying GR.
2. Cite data falsifying GR (not possible).
3. Realize that you have nowhere to go, and shut up.
4. Irrelevant babbling.
Paul Cardinale
Spaceman
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.02053...@posting.google.com...
> Falsification would require showing that a measured value is different
> from what GR predicts. So far that hasn't happened.
The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old.
the paradox twins are the same revs of the Moon old.
the paradox twins are the same age PERIOD!
time has not changed
the clocks goofed it's countings of time.
SR and GR are stupid and all that can't see where they are wrong
are just as stupid.
they both ignore WHAT a clock counts
and HOW it works at all.
and it seems so do you.
That is sad.
Gravity is caused by excess electrons making a Giant static field
around the Earth and anything with gravitational pull.
Gravity is merely static attraction.
and that is actually electron push/spin and free motion
causing the force of gravity in reality.
they also create the magnetic field when they
automatically conserve thier motion by spinning
together instead of fighting each others spins.
the fights happen at the poles and make pretty lights.
and magnets.
the massive spins can't all be equal so they produce the
vibrations and collisons that produce the Northern and Southern lights.
It's so simple.
It sad it has been ignored for so long.
The pressure of space will get to you,
if you think it's not there.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
.
Dave Jessie
news:ufcp5ik...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> SR and GR are stupid and all that can't see where they are wrong
> are just as stupid.
>
Unbelievable. I'm surprised you can type.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dave Jessie" <DJe...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:QGtJ8.1752$zh2.1...@twister.neo.rr.com...
He can't:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#MassWeight
Dirk Vdm
Frank Wappler
Dennis Towne wrote:
> Please post a description of an experiment
> the results of which contradict the equivalence principle.
To begin with, please post a definition of "the equivalence principle"
in terms of experimentally accessable and reproducible notions;
i.e. referring to
- individually collected sets of observations, and
- reproducible operations (such as comparing, ordering, and counting)
which can be applied to an individually given set of observations,
to derive values (such as boolean values, or real number values)
which can be unambiguously understood and mutually compared;
and finally
- expressing criteria for whether or not
"the equivalence principle had been contradicted"
in terms of sets of these commensurate and communicable values
(thus making your definition itself,
and any results of trial by trial application of your definition,
commensurate and communicable and reproducible in turn).
Only after you've given such a definition
can I apply it to what I've observed (as well as you or anyone else
may apply it to what you or they observed individually) and
- determine which, if any, subset of the given observations were
sufficient to derive a set of values
in terms of which your (defining and/or contradicting) criteria
can be unambiguously evaluated at all
(i.e. determine which, if any, subset of the given observations
constitutes "one trial"); and subsequently
- apply and evaluate your (defining and/or contradicting) criteria
trial by trial; and finally
- let you know whether at least one trial had been observed,
the results of which contradict "the equivalence principle"
of your definition
(and, perhaps on further request, communicate and review just which
unambiguous boolean or real number values had been individually
obtained in the relevant trial, and exactly how the evaluation
of your criteria proceded, by being instantiated with these values.)
Or else (not to commit a category error):
Please confirm that this sketched procedure itself corresponds to
what you mean by "the equivalence principle",
which is to be applied to any other experimentally relevant notion
(such as to measurements of particular physical quantities,
or to tests of theories/algorithms which summarize and predict
sets of measurements of particular physical quantities;
though consequently not in turn to "the equivalence principle" itself).
If so, then experimental results could obviously not contradict
"the equivalence principle", as a matter of principle;
since any particular experimental result cannot contradict
the very procedure by which it was obtained in the first place.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Uncle Al
>
> Dennis Towne wrote:
>
> > Please post a description of an experiment
> > the results of which contradict the equivalence principle.
>
> To begin with, please post a definition of "the equivalence principle"
> in terms of experimentally accessable and reproducible notions;
> i.e. referring to
http://www.mzepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
So simple the Unversity of Washington Department of Physics
(Adelberger's group) could do it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Paul Cardinale
> news:64050551.02053...@posting.google.com...
> > Falsification would require showing that a measured value is different
> > from what GR predicts. So far that hasn't happened.
>
<lines not pertaining to my statements (i.e. all that verbal excrement) snipped>
Hmm... Nothing left from spacemoron.
Paul Cardinale
Spaceman
news:64050551.02053...@posting.google.com...
> "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:<ufcp5ik...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:64050551.02053...@posting.google.com...
> > > Falsification would require showing that a measured value is different
> > > from what GR predicts. So far that hasn't happened.
> >
>
> <lines not pertaining to my statements (i.e. all that verbal excrement)
snipped>
>
> Hmm... Nothing left from spacemoron.
Ignore it all you want Paul
your loss,
not mine.
and
BTW;
It had so much to do with what you said,
It proves you are brainwashed for you can't even
attempt to grasp it.
The paradox twins are the same Earth revs old.
thier clocks DO NOT measure time nor age.
you fool!
GR is wrong along with the SR it came from.
and all with the original Relativity that was wrong
about time.
time does not change rate.
only physics fools think it can at all.
Joe Bergeron
backwards, I can make delicious chocolately Tootsie Rolls come out of
it. Yum! Now there's some valuable science.
In article <ufcp5ik...@corp.supernews.com>, Spaceman
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
--
Joe Bergeron
Spaceman
Scary huh?
<LOL>
"Joe Bergeron" <jaber...@earthlink.nettled> wrote in message
news:300520021612533780%jaber...@earthlink.nettled...
Charles Cagle
Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<280520020057329909%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > In article <64050551.02052...@posting.google.com>, Paul
> > Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Cagle <pro...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<260520022239507048%pro...@singtech.com>...
> > > > You walk up to the theory and you kick out its central foundation
> > > > pillar. In other words you falsify the Equivalence Principle.
> > > >
> > > > How can one do that?
> > > >
> > > Emperically. But there is no data that contradicts it. Thus it is not
> > > falsified.
> > >
> > > <verbal excrement snipped>
> > >
> > > Paul Cardinale
> >
> > But there is data that contradicts it
>
> A lie.
Wrong. There is plenty of data that just because of its existence the
EP is falsified.
> > and it is ubiquitous,
>
> Another lie.
Wrong. It is utterly ubiquitous.
>
> >thus it has already been falsified.
>
> Third lie.
Wrong again. A monolithic gravitational field source produces a charge
separation effect. It doesn't get much more straightforward than
that. I mean that is a very straightforward prediction. Now if I use
the term 'monolithic gravitational field source' that's got to catch
you off guard because you won't find such terminology at all in texts
on GR or gravity. Yet it is an important term because it conveys
important information. You don't understand how to produce a
gravitational field while I do. This is not to say that you've never
produced one but that you really didn't know that you were doing it
when you did it. The reason you don't understand is because you've
bought into a quite a lot of theoretical nonsense and what you've
bought into starts at the most foundational aspects of physics. And if
you have the foundation wrong then you can't ever make things right
which is to say you'll be in a state of self imposed ignorance from
there on and it'll get worse and worse.
> Falsification would require showing that a measured value is different
> from what GR predicts. So far that hasn't happened.
Wrong. Falsification requires that one first understand the nature of
the gravitational field from first principles. You don't. I do. Once
you understand its nature then you automatically know whether or not
the Equivalence Principle is true or not. I know that it isn't true
and it is plain that you don't. One might hope that you could learn,
but I suspect you aren't interested in the facts, which then would mean
that you can't learn.
> You now have three options:
> 1. Admit that there is no data falsifying GR.
> 2. Cite data falsifying GR (not possible).
> 3. Realize that you have nowhere to go, and shut up.
> 4. Irrelevant babbling.
>
> Paul Cardinale
You're just confused about what my options are because you are utterly
incompetent with regard to logical deductive reasoning. First, the
falsification of GR is Easy (per the tread title) and it is done by
showing that the EP is falsified. And the EP is falsified by showing
that within a gravitational field electrons are treated differently
than protons and that a charge separation effect can be found. In a
uniformly accelerated frame no such charge separation effect can be
found.
Your options are that you can continue to rant and show me again how
void of reason and decent manners you are.
CC.
Frank Wappler
Uncle Al wrote:
> Frank Wappler wrote:
> > Dennis Towne wrote:
> > > Please post a description of an experiment
> > > the results of which contradict the equivalence principle.
> > To begin with, please post a definition of "the equivalence principle"
> > in terms of experimentally accessable and reproducible notions;
> > i.e. referring to
> [snip
... suggestion of how to conceive of, and communicate,
"the equivalence principle" as a reproducible and falsifiable
(scientific) statement _about_ particular experimental results ...
> ]
> [... Or else (not to commit a category error):]
(... snipped suggestion to conceive of, and communicate,
"the equivalence principle" as the prescription itself,
_that_ and _how_ reproducible and falsifiable (scientific)
statements about particular experimental results
may be conceived and communicated.)
> http://www.mzepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Sorry, it seemed that "The page cannot be displayed" whenever I tried.
> So simple the Unversity of Washington Department of Physics
> (Adelberger's group) could do it.
This indicates that you understand "the equivalence principle"
as a (possibly scientific) statement _about_
particular experimental results,
i.e. according to the option which was snipped above first.
Fine, it's fun to consider particular experimental procedures,
and collect observations that turn out to be sufficient for
obtaining particular experimental results accordingly.
However, as I've tried to express in my request to Dennis Towne,
I am particularly interested in the second option snipped above,
i.e. _that_
> [values (such as boolean values, or real number values)
> which can be unambiguously understood and mutually compared]
... can be derived from
> [individually collected sets of observations]
and _that_ particular experimental procedures may be expressed
and (given sufficient observations) particular trial-by-trial
results may be derived accordingly
> [in terms of sets of these commensurate and communicable values]
and
> [thus ... commensurate and communicable and reproducible in turn]
i.e. equivalently understandable
to every observer capable of comprehending boolean values,
real number values, and similarly unambiguous notions.
In fact, on any other definite but less general notion
a label such as "equivalence principle" would appear wasted ...
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Jessie wrote:
LOL, Dan. (How about a beer...)
Dave Jessie
< opening salvo of garbage snipped except for the following... >
> so their arrogant chitter chattering can be
> brushed aside as the tripe that it is. <
Thanks for the great advice!
< unbelievable amount of garbage snipped >
Dave