Louis de Broglie calls Einstein a genius
Patrick Reany
pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
Below is a testimony from Louis de Broglie about Einstein's huge
contributions to physics in all the areas he made contributions, found
in
A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORK OF ALBERT EINSTEIN, p109--127,
Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Vol 1.
--- p.109 ---
For any educated man, whether or not a professional scientist, the
name of Albert Einstein calls to mind the intellectual effort and
GENIUS which overturned the most traditional notions of physics and
culminated in the establishment of the relativity of the notions of
space and time, the inertia of energy, and an interpretation of
gravitational forces which is in some sort purely geometrical. Therein
lies a magnificent achievement comparable to the greatest that may be
found in the history of the sciences; comparable, for example, to the
achievements of Newton. This alone would have sufficed to assure its
author imperishable fame. But, great as it was, this achievement must
not cause us to forget that Albert Einstein also rendered decisive
contributions to other important advances in contemporary physics.
Even if we were to overlook his no less remarkable work on the
Brownian movement, statistical thermodynamics, and equilibrium
fluctuations, we could not fail to take note of the tremendous import
of his research upon a developing quantum theory and, in particular,
his conception of "light quanta" which, reintroducing the corpuscular
notion into optics, was to send physicists in search of some kind of
synthesis of Fresnel's wave theory of light and the old corpuscular
theory. The latter, after having been held by such men as Newton, was,
as we know, destined for oblivion. Thus, Einstein became the source of
an entire movement of ideas which, as wave mechanics and quantum
mechanics, was to cast so disturbing a light upon atomic phenomena
twenty years later.
[emphasis mine]
Patrick
jmfb...@aol.com
re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
>pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
>physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
>resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
They're not liars; they merely wish to destroy productive
work. Einstein is chosen because everybody acknowledges
that he was smart, including those who wish to prove he
was not smart. This is the beautiful irony of their effort.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
greywolf42
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
Patrick. Please don't waste everyone's time with appeals to authority. If
you'd like to provide the data and reasoning from some "historical" source,
that's fine. But advertising copy is irrelvant to science. No matter how
much of it you have.
By the way, none of the above addresses your primary point of allusions to
"stealing" ideas from others. Try to at least be consistent.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Shaun Webb
My word, you really are that stupid?
He's not appealing to authority to demonstrate the truth of the claim
"Einstein is a genius", or "Everything Einstein says is right."
He is pointing to primary irrefutable documents to demonstrate the truth
of the claim "Einstein's contempories acknowledged that his work was
original."
Shaun
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vi5qsdj...@corp.supernews.com...
No, you better waste everyone's time with appeal to Petr Beckman's
pathetic inferiority:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
1 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
2 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
3 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
4 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
5 greywolf42 15 jun 2003
6 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Mingst]
7 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003
8 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Stowe or Mingst]
9 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003 [reply to message 2]
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
Also because he was a single recognizable personality that brought
relativity to the world, a theory that can be worked with using high
school algebra. That can't be said for quantum mechanics, which has a
multitude of personalities associated with its evolution, and there's
really nothing you can do with it without somewhat advanced math.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Jan
No, no, this is an appeal to aristocracy.
Jan Bielawski
tj Frazir
But let me clear a few things up for ya ..
1 ,, he wrote in his class paper befor getting the boot " The energy
of a body is never constant but veries with the energy of the body "
Now dumbass ,,that was years befor anyone had a clue.
He defined gravity as the pit in space.
He predicted the black hole and the nuke .
Hardly anyone understands what he was talking about yet today .
He said the clocks would be running at one rate on te train and one
rate at the station BUT NEVER said time changed ,,,,your list of morons
said that .
BUT forget what anyone said ...dumbass ,,
and face one fact . e=mc2
He got help with that idia ,,help on the math.
THE BOOK ...
The UNIVERSE by Dr, Einstein
Get one and be enlightend
S. Enterprize Company
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:IgDUa.34733$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vi5qsdj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:844a1b64.03072...@posting.google.com...
{snip}
> >
> > >
> > Patrick. Please don't waste everyone's time with appeals to authority.
>
> No, you better waste everyone's time with appeal to Petr Beckman's
> pathetic inferiority:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>
> 1 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
> 2 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
> 3 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
> 4 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
> 5 greywolf42 15 jun 2003
> 6 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Mingst]
> 7 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003
> 8 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Stowe or Mingst]
> 9 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003 [reply to message 2]
>
And we see Dinky van der Tremble's name where on this list?
And Dinky doesn't lists the ongoing post following up this thread. Nor does
he admit to my four separate requests from him to provide anything that he
thought wasn't answered.
So, Dinky, still not willing to post any physics? Still not willing to bet
on any of those numerous cheapshots? Still can't post anything relevant to
the subject at hand?
I thought not. Bye.
greywolf42
Shaun Webb <shaunwe...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.26.14...@shaw.ca...
Another classic relativist "invisible snipper."
> My word, you really are that stupid?
The classic relativist ad hominem insult.
> He's not appealing to authority to demonstrate the truth of the claim
> "Einstein is a genius", or "Everything Einstein says is right."
But that is the essence of the quote, above. "Einstein is a genius"
(magnificent, greatest, imperishable fame, great, remarkable, tremendous).
A brief mention of Newton for the original corpuscular light theory. No
mention of all the others that preceded Einstein in the fields mentioned.
> He is pointing to primary irrefutable documents to demonstrate the truth
> of the claim "Einstein's contempories acknowledged that his work was
> original."
There is no mention in the above quote about Einstein's "originality" -- or
rather any evidence against the "charge" of Einstein plagiarizing other's
work.
And the quote contains no data whatsoever. It is pure proof-by-assertion.
And Patrick's use of same is pure appeal-to-authority. Also non-sequiteur,
because it doesn't address his point.
Don't get me wrong, I think Einstein was a smart guy. But the fawning
worship of you and Patrick's kind make my gorge buoyant.
jmfb...@aol.com
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <bftutr$r0d$4...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <844a1b64.03072...@posting.google.com>,
>> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>>Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
>>>pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
>>>physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
>>>resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
>><snip>
>>
>>They're not liars; they merely wish to destroy productive
>>work. Einstein is chosen because everybody acknowledges
>>that he was smart, including those who wish to prove he
>>was not smart. This is the beautiful irony of their effort.
>
>Also because he was a single recognizable personality that brought
>relativity to the world, a theory that can be worked with using high
>school algebra. That can't be said for quantum mechanics, which has a
>multitude of personalities associated with its evolution, and there's
>really nothing you can do with it without somewhat advanced math.
We had a project prevention person. His trick was to ensure
that the guys would spend their time on proving that his tests
didn't work. Finally, TW told him that nothing was ever going
to be done so that those tests would run without error. It
didn't stop him from using the error reports of the runs to
hold up ships. And he did this same set of tests, night after
night (using scarce stand alone time), project after project
after project. He refused to write tests to test the new stuff
(which was his job). Before you ask the obvious, the answer is
office politics.
Just to make it clear to the logic-challenged: these tests would
report an error if certain pieces of functionality worked.
ueb
> Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
> pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
> physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
> resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
Dear Patrick,
your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.
Nevertheless, nearly all people misjudge and underestimate Einstein
in an important point: the context of the continuum (represented
by SR/GR with Maxwell's equations) with the quanta ! They all
believe up to now that Einstein's great prediction (particles
emerge from the continuum) be wrong. Are you all still not aware
of the *fact* that the _results_ of my numerical simulations agree
with Einstein in this very important point ???
Ulrich Bruchholz
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
tj Frazir
THE origination and destination of energy is idetical to conservation
SO ,,,,,,
The mass of a body is never constant but vieries with the mass of the
body .
Mass and energy are interchangable in the destination of energy.
Gravity is a push to less energy and identical to conservation AND
the pit of space that forms around mass is a low point in energy.
NO Parts defined as a part ,,but rather relitive to its likeness to
the conservation of energy.
e= mc2 is the displacment of mass and motion in energy and identical
to conservation.
THE UNIVERSE by DR. Einstein
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> > Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
> > pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
> > physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
> > resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
>
> Dear Patrick,
> your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
> But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
> years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
> elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
> of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.
You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.
I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
jealousy? Is it a combination of things? Of course, the Einstein
haters will just turn around and scoff at the "Einstein lovers." This
is a typical counterclaim and a red herring for sure. After all,
Einstein is a bona fide genius in physics. I admire him, but I admire
Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz, Heisenberg, Newton, Schrodinger, Bohr, Born,
and Feynman too. I don't "love" any of these physicists, but I do
admire them and appreciate the contributions they made to physics.
(BTW, I rank Heisenberg as second to Einstein's genius in physics in
the 20th century.)
Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
Einstein ever proposed!
The Einstein defamers treat Einstein a 100 times more special than I
ever treated him! After all, they claim that he was a dolt thief that
stole everything of importance he ever did in physics. That's
ludicrous at face value, because it also completely impugns his
generation of top physicists as well, for it would be impossible for
this charge against Einstein to be true while maintaining that
Einstein's generation of physicists was NOT in a conspiracy to cover
up Einstein's peer theft from the world. To any reasonable person, it
should be ludicrous to imagine such a cover up to even work. Why would
this highly diverse group of top physicists --- as judged by their
religions, races, philosophies, and nationalities --- even want to do
this? How could they hope to even succeed? And where are the cries of
theft from the presumably large number of physicists that Einstein
"stole" his published papers from?
If it's true that Einstein, the "dolt," was able to pull off this
virtually impossible con game on the world, then not only was he a
genius, he was the greatest genius of the 20th century, far surpassing
any mere physics genius of the 20th century.
I say that it would take a great physicist just to find a way to redo
Lorentz's theory so that a preferred rest space (for assigning
absolute velocities), as embodied in the luminiferous ether, could be
dispensed with, but Einstein showed his genius also by explaining
precisely *why* he was not happy with Lorentz's ether theory:
Einstein wrote:
H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation,"
later called after him, though without recognizing its
group character. To him Maxwell's equations in empty space
held only for a particular coordinate system distinguished
from all other coordinate systems by its state of rest.
This was a truly paradoxical situation because the theory
seemed to restrict the inertial system more strongly than
did classical mechanics. This circumstance, which from the
empirical point of view appeared completely unmotivated,
was bounded to lead to the theory of special relativity.
---- H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality, Ideas
and Opinions, p. 75.
No dolt wrote these inspired words. Not even Poincare was thinking
along these lines, even though he was willing to concede that the
ether might not be detectable. Therefore Einstein seemed to have been
motivated to remove the crutch of the absolute rest space of the ether
because Nature itself did not seem to motivate its inclusion into the
foundations of physics!
Einstein's genius, then, was to defend what I call the "pure principle
of relativity," which is that a physicist is not to introduce a
preferred inertial frame into the foundation of physics -- even as a
model of an undetectable inertial frame (this is a modeling constraint
and NOT about Truth, but about a formal point of view). This goes way
beyond Lorentz covariance, which only looks at covariance of
equations. It is ironic to Einstein that Newton's mechanics of the
chargeless mass particle did not require the assigning of absolute
velocities, but just add a charge to the particle, and suddenly such a
preferred frame is needed for the "description" of motions of these
particles. ("I *don't* think so!" I suppose Einstein said to himself.)
Thus, Einstein's genius led us back to Newton's relativity in the
"pure" form of it, while allowing for its extension to include optics
and electrodynamics (1905 form). I repeat: the "pure" (or strong) form
of the PoR is about deep theoretical modeling, not about covariance
per se, which is what the weak form is about. The pure form already
includes mere covariance.
The obeisance to the mechanical ether was holding physics back, and
Einstein's genius showed how to make an end run around it to make a
real touchdown for modern physics! Although I'm sure that Einstein
would have characterized his own accomplishment here as him having
merely followed his instincts that physics should pursue a foundation
that assumes harmony, and one cornerstone of that harmony is the pure
PoR.
Patrick
Bill Vajk
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<pb11gb...@Muse2.private.de>...
>>Patrick Reany wrote:
> You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
> on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.
Very little (most days none) of what transpires in the sci.*
newsgroups is worthy of the serious attention of anyone with
a significant interest in science.
> Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
> defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
> these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
> do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
> Einstein ever proposed!
There is only one Everest.
> Therefore Einstein seemed to have been
> motivated to remove the crutch of the absolute rest space of the ether
> because Nature itself did not seem to motivate its inclusion into the
> foundations of physics!
Well, Patrick, if space is curved by matter/gravity then the natural
question which follows is what is standard against which we can say
it is curved? Can you answer without conflicting with your statement
above?
Tom Potter
news:<pb11gb...@Muse2.private.de>...
> > Patrick Reany wrote:
> > > Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
> > > pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
> > > physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
> > > resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
> >
> > Dear Patrick,
> > your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
> > But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
> > years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
> > elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
> > of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.
>
> You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
> on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.
>
> I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
> jealousy? Is it a combination of things? Of course, the Einstein
> haters will just turn around and scoff at the "Einstein lovers." This
> is a typical counterclaim and a red herring for sure.
Which is the "red herring"?
That people worship Einstein,
or that people hate Einstein.
Paraphrasing "Patrick Reany's" statement:
"You should be more observant about <God> defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick."
Frankly, I see far more worship of Einstein
than I do hatred, and it seems to me that the people
who worship Einstein, are the ones who use ad hominem,
when some idea associated with their God is challenged,
or when someone points out that their God was not the
first to elucidate some concept.
The fact of the matter is,
that rational, intelligent folks,
with no race, religion, or national origin bias,
are offended by the worship of anything except hard facts.
For example, I object to the use of the word "Sir" when referring to
great people, as this glorifies the British monarchy,
rather than the idea, and I object to ideas in science
being associated with races, religions, nations, and
particular institutions, as this puts the emphasis on
something other than the idea.
It is my perception
that many people try to identify themselves with
people of note (Singers, scientists, actors, you name it.)
by putting the emphasis on the person, rather than the works
of the person, and I assert that certainly when speaking about
science, that personalities, races, religions, nations, organizations, etc.
should not enter into the discussion.
Also note, that many people try to identify themselves with
accomplishments of note (Transistors, electronics, the Internet, etc.)
by claiming that their race, religion, nation, occupation, political party,
etc.
was responsible for the accomplishment.
To attach a person, race, religion, nation, political party, etc.
to a work is the promotion of ones personal agenda.
Truth can stand on its' own.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
S. Enterprize Company
What about me? At least Einstein received a Nobel Prize in Physics, and
worldwide recognition. I show the ENTIRE structure of this universe, and I am
given NO RESPONSE , accept criticism of "me".
I guess when you treat me like crap, it effects everyone including Einstein.
Where is God? NO RESPONSE . Just like they did to me.
What about all the suffering and hell and death of billions of people? NO
RESPONSE
6 Million Jews Prayed to God during their slaughter. God gave them NO RESPONSE.
Now just examine my work for years. NO RESPONSE. I guess you people will
never learn, even if it takes the total destruction of this world to eternal
hell and damnation and beyond. You treat me like sh*t. Just see the results in
the world.
S. Enterprize Company
>
> What about me? At least Einstein received a Nobel Prize in Physics, and
>worldwide recognition. I show the ENTIRE structure of this universe, and I am
>given NO RESPONSE , accept criticism of "me".
>
> I guess when you treat me like crap, it effects everyone including
>Einstein.
>
>Where is God? NO RESPONSE . Just like they did to me.
>What about all the suffering and hell and death of billions of people? NO
>RESPONSE
>
>6 Million Jews Prayed to God during their slaughter. God gave them NO
>RESPONSE.
>
> Now just examine my work for years. NO RESPONSE. I guess you people will
>never learn, even if it takes the total destruction of this world to eternal
>hell and damnation and beyond. You treat me like sh*t. Just see the results
>in
>the world.
>
>
Let's see I did an analysis of the world during the time of Noah, showing all
possible ways and alternatives to help the world back then in time frame
analysis. Noah, seemed to respect me, he stayed alive for many years. Everyone
else gave me no response. So I guess in return for treating me like sh*t in the
time frame analysis, they paid for it in that world flood period, just like you
people will pay me for the treatment you have given me.
Come on... Damn me and The Smart Model continue to give NO RESPONSE. Watch
your world go to hell with your loved ones and children. The Creator, God,
does the action, I just show Him the time frame analysis, to try to help you
and this world. Who's to blame? Me. NO, God. NO,
YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ARE.
Oh my heart just bleeds for Einstein.... . Look at all the prasie and money
he got during his time in this world.
Patrick Reany
You editted out the parts that would have helped to answer your own
question, and you didn't even indicate that you editted out stuff. I
can't answer your question because it is too vague. I was referring to
the luminiferous ether, which has a definite state of motion at all
points relative to its overall average motion frame. How did you get
to curved space from what I posted?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
I did not use the phrase "Einstein worship." What precisely is
"Einstein worship." I ask YOU because YOU used it. How did God get
into the discussion? I did say that I admire what Einstein
accomplished, but that's not the same as worship. I also didn't refer
to God. Explain.
>
> The fact of the matter is,
> that rational, intelligent folks,
> with no race, religion, or national origin bias,
> are offended by the worship of anything except hard facts.
What "worship"? What is the objective evidence of "Einstein worship"
here? You didn't paraphrase what I said, you distorted it for your own
purposes. Paraphrasing is not supposed to add new elements.
Patrick
ueb
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<pb11gb...@Muse2.private.de>...
>> Patrick Reany wrote:
>> > Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
>> > pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
>> > physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
>> > resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>> your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
>> But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
>> years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
>> elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
>> of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.
> You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
> on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.
I observed that too. You overlooked the word "serious" in my text.
Do you take seriously these postings ?
> I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
> jealousy? Is it a combination of things?
Jealousy of course. (In which, race hatred comes from jealousy too.)
That concerns Einstein not alone, but all persons who have achieved
anything. I must notice it with my own results, in which even
good-willing persons like Patrick Reany meticulously avoid to
mention them.
..
> Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
> defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
> these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
> do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
> Einstein ever proposed!
That's a quite simple reason. ;-) The other celebrities made building
block theories, and people willingly play with building blocks. In
return, people are fully unable to imagine anything of continuum.
And geometry is absolutely suspect to them.
- Did you not emphasize the difference of principle theories and
constructed theories ? That is an expression of this difference. :-)
> The Einstein defamers treat Einstein a 100 times more special than I
> ever treated him! After all, they claim that he was a dolt thief that
> stole everything of importance he ever did in physics.
These persons do simply not grasp the essence of a genius. Even a
genius takes the best of all available, and makes the great new
_from it_ . - I don't take seriously these persons.
Dear Patrick, you have overlooked my actual message. Did you it
on purpose ? - I'll repeat the actual paragraph:
| Nevertheless, nearly all people misjudge and underestimate Einstein
| in an important point: the context of the continuum (represented
| by SR/GR with Maxwell's equations) with the quanta ! They all
| believe up to now that Einstein's great prediction (particles
| emerge from the continuum) be wrong. Are you all still not aware
| of the *fact* that the _results_ of my numerical simulations agree
| with Einstein in this very important point ???
People don't understand the greatest that Einstein (or a human at all)
ever did ! Up to now !
My results support even that greatest discovery ! Why should that be
not worth to be mentioned ? It were great if really competent persons
like Tom Roberts or Steve Carlip would help you to answer this
delicate question.
Ulrich Bruchholz
Tom Potter
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend
that Einstein has been made into an untouchable icon
by the media, and that he, rather than his contributions
are worshipped, and that his followers, get irrational
just as any cult follower does,
when someone questions their hero's doctrine or his life style.
For example, one poster in this thread, posted:
"You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick."
Hopefully, he will post some of the "real sick" "defaming"
and comment on it, so the readers can see what he considers "real sick".
This is a mild example of how the Einstein cult reacts
when their hero's contributions are questioned.
Regarding your question:
"How did God get into the discussion?"
To some people questioning God is heresy,
and to some people questioning Einstein is heresy.
Bill Vajk
snip
> You editted out the parts that would have helped to answer your own
> question, and you didn't even indicate that you editted out stuff.
snip
You're blathering nonsense again. Rather than point out
the mounting inadequacies in your protestations, I'll
go about my business in more worthwhile arenas. Thanks
for playing though.
Sam Wormley
>
> To some people questioning God is heresy,
> and to some people questioning Einstein is heresy.
>
A least Einstein was real and made substantial contributions to
our understanding of the world around us.
robert egri
L. de Broglie: "L'Oeuvre d"Einstein et la Dualite des Ondes at des
Corpuscles," Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 21, No 3. July 1949, pp345-347:
"M. Albert Einstein dont tout le monde savant celebre aujourd'hui le
soixante-dixieme anniversaire a accompli une oeuvre scientifique d'une
immense porteee: en dehors de ces importants travaux sur la theorie
des fluctuations et sur le mouvements Brownien, il a cree entierement
la theorie de la Relativite qui a tenu a juste titre une si grande
place dans la Physique contemporaine et il a, a plusieurs reprises,
apporte des contributions essentielles au developpement de la theorie
des Quanta. C'est lui en particulier qui a le premier souligne la
dulaite d'aspect onde-corpuscule dans le cas de la lumiere et qui en a
tres finement analyse quelques unes des consequences les plus
importantes. Nous voudrions montrer dans les pages qui suivent le lien
qui existe entre les deux parties essentielles de l'oeuvre d'Einstein;
ce n'est pas par hasard que le createur de la theorie de la Relativite
a ete aussi le precurseur de la Mecanique ondulatoire et des theories
quantiques actuelles..."
de Broglie, fairly capable and talented younger colleague with some
recognized contribution to the subject matter himself, did not have to
write this, he volunteered.
tj Frazir
Re: Louis de Broglie would call you idiots still
tj Frazir
fuck off and die
Re: Louis de Broglie would call you idiots still
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
Jim Greenfield
What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"
If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
achieved. Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
and then???
tj Frazir
underwater vision
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Its the fucking GOV not physics.
They paid me 50 million to keep quiet ...
They will sue me in front of the world then .
They cant winn having lost the game befor it started.... I forced thier
evry blunder.
What they fear the most is an IQ bigger than thier egeos.
Jan
> I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
> jealousy? Is it a combination of things?
It's a combination of things. At the bottom of the singular "interest"
in Einstein is simply the fact that mathematical prerequisites for
certain _parts_ of _special_ relativity are rather easy compared to
virtually everything else in physics. This leaves it open to attacks
by deluded armchair critics who apparently can't find any other way to
boost their self-esteem.
> The Einstein defamers treat Einstein a 100 times more special than I
> ever treated him! After all, they claim that he was a dolt thief that
> stole everything of importance he ever did in physics. That's
> ludicrous at face value,
Especially now when the Einstein archive is open plus scores of
researchers went (and still are) going in detail through the archives
of Lorentz, Hilbert, etc. There is nothing to discuss, there exists
the full paper trail, the documents and the letters tell the story
exactly as it happened.
Jan Bielawski
ueb
> What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
> the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
> towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
> thought processes.
How do you know illogical conclusions ? What conclusions concretely
are illogical ?
> Having (according to his supporters) found the
> fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
> human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
> Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
> wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
> control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
> the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"
What fatal flaw ?
> If Relativity were 100% correct,
GR is correct in a far wider parameter space than people believe
up to now. But since even Einstein's alleged followers suppress
the most important support of his ideas (because it comes from an
engineer, and that may not be), they may not be surprised at all
the odd discussions.
Ulrich Bruchholz
tj Frazir
DUMBFUCKS that dont understand physics at all think they can run a
smear campain and winn physical law by defalt.
YOU ignore all facts and stick to the bullshit you think you can
controle .
FUCK U
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT EINSTEIN SAID so fuck off
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>
> What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
> the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
> towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
> thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
> fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
> human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
> Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
> wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
> control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
> the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"
>
> If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
> cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
> achieved.
Somewhere in the future you will develop a tumor and the
specialist will order an MRI scan. When the nurse will ask
you to be very still while the machine is doing its work,
remember that, if the engineers who designed it would have
had rejected relativity like you do, you would be toasted
on the spot.
> Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
> hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
> the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
> knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
> and then???
Title: "Relativity should cure cancer and food shortage"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
Welcome.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Jim Greenfield wrote:
> If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
> cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
> achieved.
In fact, relativity helped cure food shortage. It
helped resolve many problems in chemistry, and
chemistry solved the fertilizer shortage as of
early 1930's.
Electron microscopy helped discover the dna, and
uses also relativity for correct focusing.
Cure for cancer ?
Try these links :
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/heinterviewhk.htm
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/hkremer.htm
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books/hkbrevolution.htm
Hayek.
Patrick Reany
[snip]
>
> What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
> the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
> towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
> thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
> fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
> human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
> Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
> wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
> control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
> the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"
The purpose of this thread has NOTHING to do with your imaginary
"slavish supporters" defending Einstein against challeneges to his
relativity theory! It has ONLY to do with claims that he was a dolt
and a thief. Did you read the original post of this thread?
>
> If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
> cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
> achieved.
Why don't you exaplin to us how "100% correct" relativity could bring
on a cure to cancer and solve food shortages. I don't see the
connections.
> Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
> hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
> the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
> knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
> and then???
Nuclear explosions? The theory for that didn't come from biology or
agronomy.
What is "pure and accurate knowledge of physics"? Do you know of any
"100% correct" theory in physics?
Patrick
Jim Greenfield
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
JimG
Richard Henry
> I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
> alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
> the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
> intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
> which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
> end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
What errors in logic?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0307...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
> alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
> the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
> intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
> which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
> end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
And you and I will be under that scanner 10 years from now.
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<Gravity...@webtv.net>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
<7052-3F2...@storefull-2153.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
So what is the process for clear steel? You want physics,
that's about as physical as it gets. I can't say I've
been in a steel works but suspect that cauldron/ladle/blast furnace
can get mighty hot.
A blast furnace is an interesting and rather complex
chemical reaction -- but it *is* easily enough described;
a Google search found several. Surely clear steel is
easy enough to describe as well, unless it's fileable
in the same place as the Philadelphia Experiment, alien
abductions, and the continued existence of a 50's-era
singer.
It would be interesting to fabricate a sheet of steel
1 atom thick but I'm not sure how clear that would be.
As for control -- if one can't control the experiment it is
not clear how much can be derived therefrom. A bit like
trying to keep food cool when the door of the fridge is
continually being opened and closed.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Tom Potter
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...
The most fundamental errors are these:
1. The promotion of the non-existent "inertia mass".
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)
2. The assertion that mass and energy are the same thing.
Mass and energy are completely different physical properties.
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)
3. The insistences on continuity.
(When it is obvious that reality arises from quantum events.)
4. The denial of quantum mechanics (God rolling dice).
(The has wasted much time and brain power, much of it Bohr's.)
(Also note how much money and effort has gone into quantum gravity
with the emphasis on trying to make the quantum agree with Einstein's
continuous GR.)
5. Making mass more fundamental than time and space,
and for that matter events.
In other words Einstein asserted that mass distorts time and space,
whereas mass arises from time and space, and time and space arise
from quantum events.
(This has sent physics off on a tangent, like much of Aristotle's works.)
6. The elevation of "equivalence" to a important role,
when the whole idea detracts from the fact that interactions
are symmetrical, and that the so-called gravitational forces
are simply situations where one perceives an object as fixed in media (Time
and space)
and inertial forces are simply situations where one perceives an object is
varying in media (Time and space)
These two different ways (Inertia and gravity) of looking at the same thing
(An interaction)
came about because of the weaknesses in man's two-body math.
To simplify two-body problems, one body is perceived to be fixed in media
( Time and space)
and the second body is perceived to be varying in media.
Gravitational forces are associated with bodies perceived to be fixed in
media,
whereas inertia forces are associated with bodies perceived to be varying in
media.
For example, in the Sun/Earth two-body system, the Sun is perceived to be
fixed in media ( Time and space),
and the Earth is perceived to be varying in media.
Thus the Earth gets the 365.25 days ( Time) and the 93,000,000 miles (
Space),
and the Sun gets the Universal Gravitational Constant "G" to balance the
equation.
mass(Sun) * G = distance(Earth)^3 / time(Earth)^2
For a detailed, graphic outline of this,
visit my web site, and download my physics tutorial.
Patrick Reany
> >
> > Nuclear explosions? The theory for that didn't come from biology or
> > agronomy.
> >
> > What is "pure and accurate knowledge of physics"? Do you know of any
> > "100% correct" theory in physics?
> >
> > Patrick
> I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
> alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
> the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
> intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
> which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
> end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
> JimG
Please be specific. What "errors in the logic" are at the foundation
of Einstein's relativity? What was to you obviously better than
relativity? In what sense is modern physics in a dead end. I just
don't see your "dead end" physics state at all. What's your proposed
cure to this dead end?
Patrick
Hayek
That is no wonder, since De Broglie thesis about
matter waves was going to be refused by the French
academics. ( around 1920). Luckily, Einstein was
in France and defended De Broglie's views.
"The Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
him a degree such a fooled idea, he got the degree
alright but only because Albert Einstein happened
to be visiting paris at the time and said : "look,
this is not such a bad idea, maybe it is even true"
Sometime later 'matter waves', interferences
patterns of electrons chased through a atomic
grid, were discovered.
I wonder why Einstein, who had such an open mind,
on matter wave duality of both light and
particles, could not adapt to the 'probalistic'
views on QM brought forward by Pauli and Heisenberg.
From the bbc documentary "uncertain principles" :
John Gribbin narrating : "[Einstein] he could not
believe that the outcome of an experiment depended
on chance, and thats what lead Einstein for the
last twenty years or more of his life to fight
this more or less lone battle against the theory
that was taking physics by storm, and try to find
flaws in it...."
Hayek.
Tom Potter
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3F27C3B2...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
I find it hard to believe that
"Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
a degree" to an obviously brilliant member
of French nobility.
Everyone recognized the brilliance of De Broglie work,
in fact it provided the stimulus that quickly lead to the
formulation of quantum mechanics,
and within five years, he had received a Nobel Prize.
Anyone who has read anything written by De Broglie
would be instantly impressed by his brilliance,
his clarity and his insightfulness.
How such an individual could be denied a degree for an original
and brilliant paper, that was instantly recognized as such
by all the great thinkers, is beyond me.
I challenge the poster to provide
concurrent, historical data that verifies his assertion.
tj Frazir
100 times.
Freeze BIG block of steel ,,,fill with murcury ...
close so it cant leak ,,,heat bottom .
The mecury will expand ad compress the steel.
At 650,000,000 steel ,,,and most elements become clear.
The top plugs are frozen in place ,,the block must be 20 feet wide ad
30 feet tall with a 2 gallon chamber that will be over 5 gallons after
the 7 th cycle of the block.
Each time the chamber is filled to max.
tj Frazir
potter you amaze me ,,,who could stupe so low and not be a cock sucker
!!
Tom Potter
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6522-3F2...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> French ?? Noble ?? lol fuckle chuckle
>
> potter you amaze me ,,,who could stupe so low and not be a cock sucker
> !!
>
You seem to have a creative, open, free market oriented mind,
yet you seem to be as brainwashed as most people on some issues.
I am beginning to think that you are not
an eight foot tall Walpole Island Indian, multi-billionaire,
but just another brainwashed shill.
No one "stupes"so low,
as when he "stupes" to help a child,
and the children of future generations,
think and act rationally and morally,
rather than succumb to the brainwashing
of people and groups with selfish agendas.
tj Frazir
tj Frazir
"" whitch aint much ""
U could not comprehend my ajanda.
Theres a simple reason the chinease didnt take your log deal .. they
bought mine insted.
I dont nead they money but they did,
FUCK FRANCE
I pulled my bizz away from france and gave papan the biz.
I did spend that 14 mil in flo !! on just 2 acres.
One of my neases got hitched so I had a house built in miami ,,,after
seeing sadoms palice I thought some marble and brazilian cherry would
look good together.
you can strole by fraser yachts and dream dumbass.
Jim Greenfield
Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time. But
a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
a moving train it would NOT. So the observers made a mistake, and
photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
Jim G
ueb
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...
>>
[snip]
>>
>> What errors in [Einstein's] logic?
> The most fundamental errors are these:
> 1. The promotion of the non-existent "inertia mass".
> (The has wasted much time and brain power.)
???
> 2. The assertion that mass and energy are the same thing.
> Mass and energy are completely different physical properties.
> (The has wasted much time and brain power.)
Energy is the fourth component of the impulse vector, and this is
identical with mass. A quite simple derivation. But one must
not discuss that in view of the overwhelming empirical evidence.
> 3. The insistences on continuity.
> (When it is obvious that reality arises from quantum events.)
Ah. You are not alone with this restricted view. ;-/
It is indeed obvious that reality arises from quantum events. But
quantum events arise from continuum, so what ! Not even Einstein's
followers see that simple. Read
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
I have empirical evidence for that !!!
> 4. The denial of quantum mechanics (God rolling dice).
> (The has wasted much time and brain power, much of it Bohr's.)
I'm afraid that Bohr developed a false approach. The "quantum events"
have nothing to do with a "rolling dice". My numerical simulations
demonstrate quite clearly that such "quantum events" are connected
with chaos.
> (Also note how much money and effort has gone into quantum gravity
> with the emphasis on trying to make the quantum agree with Einstein's
> continuous GR.)
"Quantum gravity" is of course crap. Gravitation is quantized no way.
> 5. Making mass more fundamental than time and space,
> and for that matter events.
> In other words Einstein asserted that mass distorts time and space,
I'm inclined to agree. That may be the reason why Einstein not more
succeeded in the try to make a general theory of fields. That
general theory comes from alone, as you can see on my site. It's
pure geometry !
> whereas mass arises from time and space,
Yes. It is the first integration constant of the source-free
Einstein equations.
> and time and space arise
> from quantum events.
No. That is illogical. One defines an event from time - do you see
the contradiction ?
> 6. The elevation of "equivalence" to a important role,
[snip ununderstandable]
The "equivalence principle" means nothing else than the two parts
of the curvature vector, which decides the force to a mass.
That is an extraordinary "important role" to understand GR,
and physics at all.
Ulrich Bruchholz
ueb
> Please be specific. What "errors in the logic" are at the foundation
> of Einstein's relativity? What was to you obviously better than
> relativity? In what sense is modern physics in a dead end. I just
> don't see your "dead end" physics state at all. What's your proposed
> cure to this dead end?
I see a "dead end" too, but in another sense than this person, who
only diverts from the actual issue. I expressed it already in two
recent replies to you, and shall return to it in a reply to
Tom Potter.
Ulrich Bruchholz
Tom Potter
yer ajanda is selling wood chips and boats,
motivating folks to think big,
telling the world about clear steel, energy and jesus,
and fantacizing about billion dollar projects
like scooping gold off the ocean floors,
selling ice bergs, and such.
not a bad ajanda for a ten foot tall Walpole unjun,
who went to cleveland with 25 cents in his pants pocket,
and ten thouand dollars sowed in the lining of his coat.
The Ghost In The Machine
<18068-3F...@storefull-2156.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
> I posted the clar steel made in tthe big block with the mercury chamber
> 100 times.
I must have missed the first 99. :-)
> Freeze BIG block of steel ,,,fill with murcury ...
> close so it cant leak ,,,heat bottom .
Steel is already frozen. I suspect you mean chill or
cool to about -40 degrees C, which is the freezing point
of mercury. Actually, maybe below that; unlike water,
mercury reduces volume when it gives up its latent heat.
So fill the steel block with a tight-fitting cube of solid
mercury -- erm, closing the cube could be a minor problem
since one either has to pour molten steel onto this nicely
chilled metal salad or play "weld the corner bits". However,
one can always pour in the mercury through a tiny weephole.
However, aside from that, a gentle warming will melt the mercury,
putting pressure on the sides of the steel block. How much
pressure, I can't say offhand; the exact amount is probably
dependent on the amount of "give" (elasticity?) the container has,
which itself is a function of the thickness of the walls.
With the weephole one might even invent an exotic form of
thermometer unless one plugs it tightly enough.
> The mecury will expand ad compress the steel.
More like blow up the steel. Unless you're referring to a
small chunk of workmetal inside of this steel tomb....
> At 650,000,000 steel ,,,and most elements become clear.
Erm, 6.5 * 10^8 what? Pascal? lbs/in^2? Stone-force-equivalents
per microacre? :-)
> The top plugs are frozen in place ,,the block must be 20 feet wide ad
> 30 feet tall with a 2 gallon chamber that will be over 5 gallons after
> the 7 th cycle of the block.
> Each time the chamber is filled to max.
>
I don't see how this can work. However, I'm not an expert metallurgist.
At best, one gets a small, stressed piece of steel, and a slightly
deformed big steel container.
You'd be better off doing something really exotic, like taking
nearly pure molten iron and cooling it very slowly, to get large
iron crystals. (Ideally, this would be done with ultrapure
stuff and in microgravity.)
tj Frazir
Bob Hope dint have 10 grand in his coat.
He had 25 cents and slept on the street.
AND ,,, you can NOT use me for your excuse to fail.
No trying is worse than failing.
IF you play the loto 20 times in life ,,you waisted your life. You
should have spent it on the phone ,,,and ask for a deal after have done
all the math and found a few mil to be made.
You can twist words but it dont mater.
If you dont try making a few mil,,,you wount make a few mil.
Only the ones that do it can tell you for real.
Not a tv scam ,, no charge for information.
It was potter that found china wanted woodchips and a pile for free
and wnted to get rich easy ,, And I think he did.
He ask and they said yup ,,,they nead woodchips and markets are markets
in nead.
I bought loads and traded evrything.
Never bought a stock ,, I buy the ship and fill it with beens.
making millions is not a game of chance but a replication of history
its self.
You wount strike oil unless your drilling a well.
POOR people dont lead they follow.
The diferance between rich and poor ,,,,,,,,
only I can tell you ,,,the poor man will do evrything average and on a
week bases.
But a rich man will do one thing very well.
You can be stupid all you want ,,
It wount affect my money.
Will your stupidity afect your money ??
Paul B. Andersen
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
> on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
> photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
> return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
> different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time.
Well?
Wouldn't the direction of the photon's velocity
be different for the two observers?
> But
> a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
> a moving train it would NOT. So the observers made a mistake, and
> photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
> due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
Sure the velocity (specifically the direction) of light is source dependent.
Einstein didn't say otherwise.
Quite the contrary, the aberration you are referring to above
follows from the Lorentz transform, as Einstein described in his
"Electrodynamics" paper.
So where is the problem?
Paul
Gregory L. Hansen
Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:<cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02>...
>> "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c4afb26.0307...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
>> > alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
>> > the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
>> > intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
>> > which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
>> > end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
>>
>> What errors in logic?
>
>Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
>on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
>photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
>return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
>different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time.
Not without also including the second postulate, that the speed of light
is the same in both inertial reference frames.
>But
>a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
>a moving train it would NOT.
Inertial frame, Jim. Inertial! The track in this thought experiment
doesn't follow the curvature of the Earth because that would not be an
inertial frame.
>So the observers made a mistake, and
>photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
>due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
>Jim G
If the photon velocity is source dependent, it's not for the reason you've
given.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bgbruu$8n0$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
> > on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
> > photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
> > return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
> > different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time.
>
> Well?
> Wouldn't the direction of the photon's velocity
> be different for the two observers?
>
> > But
> > a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
> > a moving train it would NOT. So the observers made a mistake, and
> > photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
> > due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
>
> Sure the velocity (specifically the direction) of light is source dependent.
> Einstein didn't say otherwise.
hehe.... this one reminds me of our friend Androcles:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedInvariant.html
> Quite the contrary, the aberration you are referring to above
> follows from the Lorentz transform, as Einstein described in his
> "Electrodynamics" paper.
>
> So where is the problem?
Wait, let me guess...
Upstairs?
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Challenge accepted, it was in a bbc documentary,
get yourself a DIVX player, ( http://www.divx.com
) I will divx the file I recorded and put it on my
website. If you send me your address, I will even
send you the DVD with the whole documentary, I
converted the mpeg2 recorded with my Hauppage
dvr-350 to DVD format.
It also contains a documentary on methods to avoid
meteors, and a documentary on supervulcanoes.
Hayek.
Tom Potter
Let's be scientific about this.
Refer me to the source documents
that the documentary was based on.
I just saw a documentaries on Noah's Ark, and
little green men from outer space.
Do you assert that this is proof?
It does not take a brain surgeon
to comprehend that the brilliance of De Broglie's work
was INSTANTLY recognized by almost everyone in the
scientific world.
His work inspired the work that resulted in
quantum mechanics, and he got a Nobel Prize
within five years.
In fact, De Broglie's work was embraced more by
the folks contending with Einstein,
(Q.M. vs non- Q.M.)
than with Einstein himself,
who rejected Q.M. for many years.
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Tom Potter
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > To some people questioning God is heresy,
> > and to some people questioning Einstein is heresy.
>
> A least Einstein was real and made substantial contributions to
> our understanding of the world around us.
Maybe we should give God credit for serenditity,
in which case, she is responsible for
almost all major advances.
Makes as much sense as giving
Einstein credit for all kinds of advances
that other people made.
Sam Wormley
serenditity?
God?
In your dreams Potter...
David Evens
wrote:
Do recall that his notion of support for his pretense that QM was not
involved in the development of semiconductor technology in the face fo
the statements of the quantum physicists who developed semiconductor
technology is to refer to the statements of the quantum physicists who
developed semiconductor technology.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Potter
No,
unlike you, I don't believe that there are Gods,
who perform all kinds of wonderful things,
to enhance the prestige of religions, races, organizations, nations,
occupational groups, etc.
It takes all kinds of people to make things happen,
and most of the things that people think are important,
are not nearly as important as a Nat King Cole piano solo,
a Sade vocal, air conditioning, and a good bowel movement.
Of course, most of the people who hype people and things,
do it to promote their personal agenda,
by elevating some person, group or thing
and trying to piggy back on the enhanced reputation.
Why do you think presidents call World Series winners on the telephone,
and why does British royalty pass our "Sir" cards?
hanson
news:bgg5gg$oaqvn$1...@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Sam Wormley" wrote
> > Tom Potter wrote:
> > > Sam Wormley wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > To some people questioning God is heresy,
> > > > > and to some people questioning Einstein is heresy.
> > > >
> > > > A least Einstein was real and made substantial contributions to
> > > > our understanding of the world around us.
>
> and most of the things that people think are important,
> are not nearly as important as a Nat King Cole piano solo,
> a Sade vocal, air conditioning, and a good bowel movement.
>
......... and elsewhere earlier in thread
Re: Nonexistence of time and relativity of simultaneity ?
Tom writes:
>
> I suggest that farmers had more to do with the development of
> transistors, than q.m. theorists. If farmers didn't provide food
> for the people to eat, there would never had been vaccuum tubes,
> cat's whisker diodes, integrated circuits, and all the attendant
> OCCUPATIONS that provided the technology that made solid state
> devices a reality.
> Tom Potter
>
>
Tom, while it is factually correct what you say and infer, that all
accomplishments and developments are indeed the results and the
products of all interplays in the grand web of life and environments......
you should recognize that you trample onto the sentiments, beliefs
and emotions of most individuals in this particular cyber audience.
The views you advocate in this forum denigrate the self-worth/esteem
of the very few physics professionals in here as well as the fanatical
beliefs of all the dilettantes and hobbyists of physics. (i.e. like Evens)
Perhaps you would be more believable and effective in your conveyance
if you'd mentioned in your posts, as preamble or post-script, what their
god/prophet and icon, Albert Einstein, had to say on this issue:
Einstein says: "Lieber ein Klempner oder Hausierer werden als ein Physiker."
(III.4) (Better to become a handyman or a peddler than a physicist.) ...and...
"If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber." -- Albert Einstein
Good luck, Tom. You are a very entertaining ass. Thanks for all the laughs.
ahahaha.......ahahahanson
tj Frazir
"""" HE SAID if not for his life of physics he would heve missed the
chance to understand God did not play dice with the universe.
THE UNIVERSE by DR. Einstein .
tj Frazir
The energy mass contains is equal to the energy it displaces.
Its soooooooooooooo over yer heads you must denie what you can not
understand ,,,because you have none of the information and wount get
anywhere with any shortcuts including slander and ignorance of the
physical nature of the origen and destination of energy.
"" let me put that so you can understand me very clear ,,,,,,,,,yer
fucking stupid.
Hayek
It was in the bbc "learning zone" series, and the
bbc is very serious about these.
>
> I just saw a documentaries on Noah's Ark, and
> little green men from outer space.
> Do you assert that this is proof?
>
> It does not take a brain surgeon
> to comprehend that the brilliance of De Broglie's work
> was INSTANTLY recognized by almost everyone in the
> scientific world.
Instantly by Einstein at least. And then his idea
got experimentally confirmed. That is the ticket
to a Nobel prize.
Shall I send you the documentaries ?
Hayek.
Jim Greenfield
> > Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
> > on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
> > photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
> > return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
> > different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time.
>
> Well?
> Wouldn't the direction of the photon's velocity
> be different for the two observers?
Only if limitations were imposed! If the conductor had a train window
to look out from, he could compare the photon's path to the
environment, the same as the platform observer. Similarly, if the
observations were made on a coal black night, both "see" the same (no
motion, apart from that artificially suggested by balance, or
restricted eye motion). If you are in a weightless environment in the
dark, you CANNOT detect movement of a light source (star) other than
by being able to see background. Eistein made the mistake of assuming
the conflicting apparent observations of the two to reflect reality of
the situation, when in fact illusion was the prime offender.
>
> > But
> > a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
> > a moving train it would NOT. So the observers made a mistake, and
> > photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
> > due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
>
> Sure the velocity (specifically the direction) of light is source dependent.
> Einstein didn't say otherwise.
Could you please repeat this above paragraph and sign in bold? Also
may I quote you?
> Quite the contrary, the aberration you are referring to above
> follows from the Lorentz transform, as Einstein described in his
> "Electrodynamics" paper.
>
> So where is the problem?
If velocity does NOT alter (dilate) time, then I see no problem!/!?!?
Jim G
>
> Paul
Bilge
>Refer me to the source documents that the documentary was based on.
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0598/059807.html
>I just saw a documentaries on Noah's Ark, and little green men from
>outer space. Do you assert that this is proof?
reply and fabricating a response to suit your agenda.
>It does not take a brain surgeon to comprehend that the brilliance
>of De Broglie's work was INSTANTLY recognized by almost everyone in the
>scientific world.
It was so instantly recognized, that deBroglie's thesis committe
was so skeptical that they sent the thesis to einstein to review it
before awarding deBroglie a ph.d.
>His work inspired the work that resulted in quantum mechanics,
>and he got a Nobel Prize within five years. In fact, De Broglie's
>work was embraced more by the folks contending with Einstein,
>(Q.M. vs non- Q.M.) than with Einstein himself, who rejected Q.M.
>for many years.
You are a complete idiot, tom. It was einstein who promoted debroglie's
work in the first place. You also have no concept of what einstein's
objections to quantum mechanics were. He obviously did not have difficulty
accepting its utility, since he contributed a great deal to the theory.
Just because you equate einstein with relativity and have zero knowledge
of the other physics that he did, doesn't mean you get to rewrite history.
Tom Potter
No, just post valid historical data,
rather than hype, and reconstructed history,
that proves your assertion that
"Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
him a degree such a fooled idea."
Jay
i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
great contributions to science and physics. however, as great as he is
i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
because after all he was a mere human like you and i, and science is
the product of the contributions of many brilliant people (besides
Einstein). my belief is that, as brilliant as Einstein was, had he not
lived i am sure some other prodigy would have come along to formulate
SR and GR. i definitely do not believe that Einstein is the one in >
10,000 years type of mind that his fanatic devotees seem to believe in
vehemently. i don't believe in this kind of stuff and at the thought
that other scientists have devoted so little compared to Einstein.
discovery in a way is not only determined by natural genius but also a
combination of hardwork and at times, circumstance.
so when there are people trying to defame Einstein, we know that it
is simply not true but i do not see any point in getting overly
emotional about it. just ignore it, for whatever the say SR/GR will
always be attributed to Einstein.
cheers,
J.
tj Frazir
Patrick Reany
> hi everyone,
>
> i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
> great contributions to science and physics.
Well, all of us don't, which is why I started this thread.
> however, as great as he is
> i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
"god"? For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity and get so
frustrated that relativists can always explain everything the
etherists can except one thing: The Light Principle. But then again,
even the etherists can only introduce the fixed ether at the cost of
the Pure Principle of Relativity. And ether makes a poor medium for
the strong and weak forces, not to mention that it is completely
undetectable and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
Patrick
Bill Vajk
> There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
Sure there is. Because we can't prove when it happens
with absolute certainty doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Tom Potter
news:slrnbipjfi....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Tom Potter:
> >Let's be scientific about this.
>
>
>
> >outer space. Do you assert that this is proof?
>
> reply and fabricating a response to suit your agenda.
>
> >of De Broglie's work was INSTANTLY recognized by almost everyone in the
> >scientific world.
>
> was so skeptical that they sent the thesis to einstein to review it
> before awarding deBroglie a ph.d.
>
> >His work inspired the work that resulted in quantum mechanics,
> >and he got a Nobel Prize within five years. In fact, De Broglie's
> >work was embraced more by the folks contending with Einstein,
> >(Q.M. vs non- Q.M.) than with Einstein himself, who rejected Q.M.
> >for many years.
>
> You are a complete idiot, tom. It was einstein who promoted debroglie's
> work in the first place. You also have no concept of what einstein's
> objections to quantum mechanics were. He obviously did not have difficulty
> accepting its utility, since he contributed a great deal to the theory.
> Just because you equate einstein with relativity and have zero knowledge
> of the other physics that he did, doesn't mean you get to rewrite history.
The article you assert is proof is dated May 1998.
As I have stated,
success has many fathers and failure is a bastard.
The fact that
"deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to einstein to review/"
is pretty solid proof that they were astounded by it,
and not that they were "skeptical"
and weren't going to "award deBroglie a ph.d".
Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe"
sending the thesis of Joe Blow to the most renown person in ANY field
to get his opinion, before they award Joe Blow his PhD?
Just give me the concurrent, historical facts.
I don't need propaganda, hype, bullshit and ad hominem.
There is plenty of this useless bullshit in the news, magazines, on TV,
and in most newsgroups posts.
As can be seen from his post,
Bilge demonstrates his dishonesty and lack of integrity by
trying to redirect my response to his post.
If you can't trust a person in little things,
you certainly cannot trust them in important things.
Tom Potter
jmfb...@aol.com
re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>bryan...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message
news:<389652c7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>> hi everyone,
>>
>> i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
>> great contributions to science and physics.
>
>Well, all of us don't, which is why I started this thread.
We noticed. You have been using the age-old technique of creating
smoke, then yelling fire.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
ueb
..
> And ether makes a poor medium for
> the strong and weak forces, not to mention that it is completely
> undetectable and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
> as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
>
> What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
> There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
Be honest, Patrick: Has ever one directly observed "strong and weak
forces" ? If yes, how ? If no, these are the same category as the
ether.
I know two kinds of theory: The one deal with hidden forces and
unobservable quantities. They are designed to fit observations on hand,
and theorists are lucky if such model makes a prediction that is
confirmed. But that might be rather accident. In general, these
theories are more and more disproved. Your statement is the usual
excuse for it.
The other use only observable quantities. That is rewarded with
far more, and more general predictions. One must not suspect that
such theory is disproven. In opposite: The general geometric theory
of fields, which comes from GR and electrodynamics, is supported
even from the known particle numbers ! That means, there is no
restriction of the parameter space, claimed by all who dislike
this kind of theory. - Einstein was certainly no God, but the
last exact scientist. That explains also the excessive hostilities,
the reasons you asked of. Let alone the hostilities against one,
who tries to continue this great tradition, and dares to succeed
in it !
Ulrich
Rob Fatland
> There is plenty of this useless [stuff] in the news, magazines, on TV,
> and in most newsgroups posts.
The real motive for Einstein defamation is of course antisemitism. The trick is
to master the "Ignore Thread" browser command.
greywolf42
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0308...@posting.google.com...
> bryan...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message
news:<389652c7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > hi everyone,
> >
> > i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
> > great contributions to science and physics.
>
> Well, all of us don't, which is why I started this thread.
>
> > however, as great as he is
> > i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
>
> Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
> are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
> "god"?
The relativists do it all the time. "So, you think you're as smart as
Einstein?" Einstein was a genius, etc....
And you -- Patrick -- are one of the prime purveyors of the Faith.
> For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
> as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity
A classic defender-of-the-faith response.
> and get so
> frustrated that relativists can always explain everything the
> etherists can except one thing: The Light Principle.
I just LOVE it when you froth at the mouth so much that you apparently write
the opposite of what you meant. However, it's even funnier because what you
wrote is explicitly true (except for the 'frustration' part). Relativists
can always find a way (after the fact) to find an explanation for what the
aetherists predicted (i.e. Sagnac) -- except for the light principle. An
aetherist finds that the constancy of the speed of light (relative to the
aether) is a trivial explanation. A relativist must elevate the 'principle'
to the word of the prophet -- and accept it on faith.
> But then again,
> even the etherists can only introduce the fixed ether at the cost of
> the Pure Principle of Relativity.
That is not a cost. That's a benefit. Those who deal in 'principles' have
left science for religion.
> And ether makes a poor medium for the strong and weak forces,
LOL! The aether is fundamentally discrete at small distances -- giving rise
to QM, EM, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. SR, on the
other hand, is required to be fully continuous -- and fails in all but EM
(from which it was presumed).
> not to mention that it is completely undetectable
LOL! It's detected all the time. GR calls it the 'preferred frame', and
the simplest marker for our motion through same is the CMBR anisotropy
(which Relativists use for the 'preferred frame' in their PPN calculations).
> and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
LOL! It's called the Pioneer effect. The aether of Maxwell (when he
derived 'his' equations) is a superfluid. 'Normal' matter entrained in a
superfluid is experimentally indistinguishable in the lab from normal matter
in a pure vacuum.
> as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
You're batting zero, Priest. You just WON'T look through Galileo's
telescope.
> What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
> There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
Amen to the Faithful.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Bilge
Perhaps you should make an attempt to internalize that statement.
>The fact that "deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to
>einstein to review/" is pretty solid proof that they were astounded
>by it, and not that they were "skeptical" and weren't going to
>"award deBroglie a ph.d".
You received a citation to an article as you requested. Now, cite
a reference which supports your opinion that "they were astounded
by it".
>Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
>to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
>they award Joe Blow his PhD?
No, but I can imagine a thesis committed sending a copy to einstein
in order to be fair and award a degree if the thesis committe was
skeptical about the thesis.
>Just give me the concurrent, historical facts. I don't need propaganda,
>hype, bullshit and ad hominem.
OK. The facts are that you are an idiot, a pathological liar, a
sociopath and have a desparate need to feel important in an subject about
which you are clueless yet have no inclination to learn anything about.
You are also frustrated by your inability to have your statements taken
seriously because everything you say is completely off the wall and at
odds with reality, attempts to infuse politics with physics and you don't
pay attention to any responses you are given nor do you even bother to
address those responses beyond declaring all of them ad hominem personal
attacks, to which you then supply ad hominem personal attacks.
Those are some of the "concurrent historical facts". I can supply
additonal facts if you wish.
>There is plenty of this useless bullshit in the news, magazines, on TV,
>and in most newsgroups posts.
Unfortunately, outfitting an armored division with shovels would
not supply enough manpower to keep up with your daily output, so
it's a real conundrum. However, as smokey the bull says, "Only you
can prevent bullshit".
>As can be seen from his post, Bilge demonstrates his dishonesty and
>lack of integrity by trying to redirect my response to his post.
Gee. I'm so embarrassed for setting followups to alt.usenet.kooks,
that I hope a lot of others will do the same in order to mitigate
my faux pas.
>If you can't trust a person in little things, you certainly cannot
>trust them in important things.
Thank you, aesop. I'll rush right over to the shrink and have
a complete brain overhaul. Do you get a discount for referrals?
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:844a1b64.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > bryan...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message
> news:<389652c7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > hi everyone,
> > >
> > > i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
> > > great contributions to science and physics.
> >
> > Well, all of us don't, which is why I started this thread.
> >
> > > however, as great as he is
> > > i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
> >
> > Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
> > are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
> > "god"?
>
> The relativists do it all the time. "So, you think you're as smart as
> Einstein?" Einstein was a genius, etc....
Would you say that your perceived "worshipping" of Einstein is more or
less than that given by others to Galileo, Newton, Huygens, Plank,
Maxwell, Lorentz, Bohr, Heisenberg, or Feynman?
>
> And you -- Patrick -- are one of the prime purveyors of the Faith.
I am NOT a purveyor of any faith. I simply maintain that physics is a
search for theories that work, and SR works "better" than LET for all
local phenomena. That's an objective statement. My proof is that more
physics has been invented on top of relativity than on top of ether in
the 20th century.
>
> > For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
> > as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity
>
> A classic defender-of-the-faith response.
What makes my defense of Einstein's relativity more "worshipping" of
Einstein on my part, by your characterization, than your defense of
Galileo-Newton or Huygens, or Maxwell-Lorentz is "worshipping" of them
on your part?
>
> > and get so
> > frustrated that relativists can always explain everything the
> > etherists can except one thing: The Light Principle.
>
> I just LOVE it when you froth at the mouth so much that you apparently write
> the opposite of what you meant.
There's a lot to froth at, to be sure. Like gross hypocrisy.
> However, it's even funnier because what you
> wrote is explicitly true (except for the 'frustration' part). Relativists
> can always find a way (after the fact) to find an explanation for what the
> aetherists predicted (i.e. Sagnac) -- except for the light principle.
Einstein accepted the Light Principle as a direct empirical fact,
explained or not. Is the Light Principle a measurement constant
locally, or not?
> An
> aetherist finds that the constancy of the speed of light (relative to the
> aether) is a trivial explanation. A relativist must elevate the 'principle'
> to the word of the prophet -- and accept it on faith.
The Light Principle was never meant to be "explained" within SR,
obviously. NO THEORY CAN EXPLAIN ITS OWN POSTULATES, LOGICALLY
SPEAKING. Theories ARE de facto "explanations" of their predictions,
not of their postulates.
Here's some questions for those smart etherists you keep talking
about:
1) Why is there an ether?
2) Why does the ether exist at rest in the inertial frame which is its
actual rest frame, rather than some other inertial frame?
3) Why is ether matter essentially different from "normal" matter?
>
> > But then again,
> > even the etherists can only introduce the fixed ether at the cost of
> > the Pure Principle of Relativity.
There has been a hell of a lot of NEW physics invented on the basis of
the pure principle of relativity, including SR itself as a
generalization of Galilean-Newtonian relativity. Show us the ether
equivalent of all this physics founded on the pure principle of
relativity in terms of ether theories. Show us how that ether theories
have been the impetus for the invention of new theories since 1905.
Explain radioactive decay on the basis of an ether theory.
>
> That is not a cost. That's a benefit. Those who deal in 'principles' have
> left science for religion.
Are you telling us that etherists have NO principles at all? If so,
then how do etherists get started on a research program? The ether
theory was originally an extension of the Mechanical Program started
by Newton. The mechanical ether failed without adding into it a lot of
ad hoc postulates, as Lorentz himself admitted. Poincare claimed that
anything can be "explained" in terms of "mechanical" theories, which
only proves that humans are clever enough to invent a mechanical
theory as the situation requires within some formal point of view.
Why don't you define for us what a "mechanical" theory really is.
>
> > And ether makes a poor medium for the strong and weak forces,
>
> LOL! The aether is fundamentally discrete at small distances -- giving rise
> to QM, EM, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. SR, on the
> other hand, is required to be fully continuous -- and fails in all but EM
> (from which it was presumed).
Show us all the calculations that make this work for the strong and
weak forces! In terms of point mass particles, of course. There aren't
virtual etherons are there? Show it for gravitation as well. What is
Feynman's QED in terms of your ether theory?
I'm really interested in your mechanical model of charge attraction
between two oppositely charged mass particles. Or for two
gravitationally attracting bodies too.
>
> > not to mention that it is completely undetectable
>
> LOL! It's detected all the time.
Prove it! How is it detected and by whom? Where is the scientific
record of these "detections"?
>GR calls it the 'preferred frame', and
Prove it! Show us an irrefutable authoritative reference for this term
'preferred frame' in GR. Preferred for what exactly?
Are you claiming a relationship between YOUR ether and Einstein's GR
"ether"?
> the simplest marker for our motion through same is the CMBR anisotropy
> (which Relativists use for the 'preferred frame' in their PPN calculations).
Relativity is the philosophy in physics that physics can be built upon
principles that do NOT require the use of any notion of an absolute
space in the classical sense of the term. This goes infinitely beyond
the trivial notion of a "preferred" space for calculation.
What is the relationship between YOUR ether matter and the
distribution of "normal matter" within the universe?
How does YOUR ether theory make use of the equivalence of
gravitational and inertial mass equality?
>
> > and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
>
> LOL! It's called the Pioneer effect.
Prove it! Give irrefutable scientific references.
> The aether of Maxwell (when he
> derived 'his' equations) is a superfluid.
So what, and prove it!
> 'Normal' matter entrained in a
> superfluid is experimentally indistinguishable in the lab from normal matter
> in a pure vacuum.
Define "'Normal' matter."
>
> > as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
>
> You're batting zero, Priest. You just WON'T look through Galileo's
> telescope.
I heard it's broken.
>
> > What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
> > There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
>
> Amen to the Faithful.
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Faithful yourself, Oh Priest of the invisible ether! Oh Priest of the
Mechanical Dogma. Hypocrite!
From the website
http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/Index.html
I found this:
SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM
The Derivation of All Science From Newtonian Contact Forces
By
Dennis McCarthy
POSTULATES
I) There exists an all pervasive ideal gas of elastic and
incompressible particles.
II) Void offers no resistance to motion.
These "postulates" are just principles -- i.e., statements of
empirical or heuristic content that one has strong confidence in, or,
articles of faith, by which one can fashion a theory upon them to
stack the deck to make them work as postulates.
You accept these principles as postulates to be used as modeling
constraints, and you are perfectly happy to make any ad hoc postulates
you need to buttress these principles so that *appear* to work.
------------------
Want more proof of faith:
On the same website I found this:
'It is inconceivable to doubt that light consists in the motion of
some sort of matter......(A)t least in the true Philosophy, in which
one conceives the causes of all natural effects in terms of mechanical
motions. This, in my opinion, we must necessarily do or else renounce
all hopes of ever comprehending anything in Physics."
--Christiaan Huygens, Treatise on Light (1675)
The "true philosophy"? Yeah right! Prove it true!
Ya know, it would be very much more convincing an argument on your
part if you could show the support of modern physicists (i.e., post
WWII) for your material ether theory.
One more thing. If you fail to intelligently answer everyone of my
questions I put to you this time, then from now on you're persona non
grata to me. I don't have time for fools that won't reply honestly and
dilligently.
And another thing. Don't edit out or manipulate anything I wrote in
this post.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> ..
> > And ether makes a poor medium for
> > the strong and weak forces, not to mention that it is completely
> > undetectable and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
> > as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
> >
> > What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
> > There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
>
> Be honest, Patrick: Has ever one directly observed "strong and weak
> forces" ? If yes, how ? If no, these are the same category as the
> ether.
Seeing them is NOT the point. They are only metaphors for interactions
anyway. The point is that it is the etherists that claim that there
exists a mechanical model of the interactions that go under these two
forces. So, it is they who have the burden of proving this statement
by showing us the actual theories and calculation that show how these
forces work under the assumptions of real material particles
interacting with each other.
Patrick
Jim Greenfield
As Einstein has been elevated to the position of Deity by many of his
followers, the term used against the questioning of his work should be
"sacrilege", not "defamation"
Jim G
Tom Potter
As can be seen,
Bilge continues to attack the messenger
with childish, low class, ad hominem,
rather than addressing the issues in
a MORAL, honest, rational, intelligent way.
Note for example, that rather than address my question:
"Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
they award Joe Blow his PhD?"
He responds with:
"you are an idiot, a pathological liar, a sociopath.."
Also note that he trivializes
misdirecting my rsponse to his post
to a low class newsgroup, that honest, moral folks avoid.
People who trivialize small dishonest actions
have no problem trivializing serious immoral actions.
Regarding the one rational point raised by Bilge,
about my comment:
"The fact that "deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to
Einstein to review" is pretty solid proof that they were astounded
by it, and not that they were "skeptical" and weren't going to
"award deBroglie a ph.d"."
I suggest that this statement makes my case.
Can you imagine ANY PhD committee sending off the PhD paper
of Mr. Joe Blow to a cultural icon, for his approval???
As can be seen by many posts in sci.physics,
members of the Einstein cult
tend to give their deity credit for all miracles.
hanson
wrote in message news:slrnbitjim....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
It is clear that Tom is exercising his lines for that unpaid gig he has landed
in his role as an extra in the Chinese TV soap opera. (TV for Transie ??)
It is not so clear however what Dubious Bilge's purpose and agenda is.
In any event, gentlemen, please carry on. Maybe the next act will tell.
You guys are a riot. Thanks for all the laughs.
hahahaha.......ahahahanson
Bilge
>> >Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
>> >to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
>> >they award Joe Blow his PhD?
>>
>> No, but I can imagine a thesis committed sending a copy to einstein
>> in order to be fair and award a degree if the thesis committe was
>> skeptical about the thesis.
>>
>> >Just give me the concurrent, historical facts. I don't need propaganda,
>> >hype, bullshit and ad hominem.
>>
>> OK. The facts are that you are an idiot, a pathological liar, a
>> sociopath and have a desparate need to feel important in an subject about
>> which you are clueless yet have no inclination to learn anything about.
>> You are also frustrated by your inability to have your statements taken
>> seriously because everything you say is completely off the wall and at
>> odds with reality, attempts to infuse politics with physics and you don't
>> pay attention to any responses you are given nor do you even bother to
>> address those responses beyond declaring all of them ad hominem personal
>> attacks, to which you then supply ad hominem personal attacks.
>>
>> Those are some of the "concurrent historical facts". I can supply
>> additonal facts if you wish.
>
>As can be seen,
>Bilge continues to attack the messenger
>with childish, low class, ad hominem,
>rather than addressing the issues in
>a MORAL, honest, rational, intelligent way.
a lack of intelligence.
Here is perfect example of you being dishonest by outright lying:
>
>Note for example, that rather than address my question:
>"Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
>to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
>they award Joe Blow his PhD?"
>
>He responds with:
>"you are an idiot, a pathological liar, a sociopath.."
No, I didn't. You need only look above at the include text to
see that my answer to that question was:
"No, but I can imagine a thesis committed sending a copy to einstein
in order to be fair and award a degree if the thesis committe was
skeptical about the thesis."
The fact that you continually fabricate evidence to support the
false accusations you make (e.g., the one you just made) is why I
called you a pathological liar and a sociopath. I called you an
idiot because you can't seem to figure out that anyone with an
IQ that's a positive number and who read what was actually written,
would notice your fabrication.
>Also note that he trivializes misdirecting my rsponse to his post
>to a low class newsgroup, that honest, moral folks avoid.
If you were honest or moral, you'd go post your kooky nonsense
in a group devoted to the subject.
>People who trivialize small dishonest actions have no problem
>trivializing serious immoral actions.
Are you anything but a walking cliche?
>Regarding the one rational point raised by Bilge,
>about my comment:
>"The fact that "deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to
>Einstein to review" is pretty solid proof that they were astounded
>by it, and not that they were "skeptical" and weren't going to
>"award deBroglie a ph.d"."
>
>I suggest that this statement makes my case.
I suggest your reasoning indicates you are dead from the neck up.
ueb
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<lbolgb...@Muse2.private.de>...
>> Patrick Reany wrote:
>> ..
>> > And ether makes a poor medium for
>> > the strong and weak forces, not to mention that it is completely
>> > undetectable and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
>> > as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
>> >
>> > What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
>> > There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
>>
>> Be honest, Patrick: Has ever one directly observed "strong and weak
>> forces" ? If yes, how ? If no, these are the same category as the
>> ether.
> Seeing them is NOT the point. They are only metaphors for interactions
> anyway.
Thanks.
That might be as weak as the following:
> The point is that it is the etherists that claim that there
> exists a mechanical model of the interactions that go under these two
> forces. So, it is they who have the burden of proving this statement
> by showing us the actual theories and calculation that show how these
> forces work under the assumptions of real material particles
> interacting with each other.
> Patrick
Ulrich
ueb
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote
>> And ether makes a poor medium for the strong and weak forces,
> LOL! The aether is fundamentally discrete at small distances -- giving rise
> to QM, EM, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Interesting. Could you please name me the amounts of the length and
time increment ?
> SR, on the
> other hand, is required to be fully continuous
Is that bad ?
> -- and fails in all but EM
> (from which it was presumed).
What all does SR fail in ?
>> not to mention that it is completely undetectable
> LOL! It's detected all the time.
Highly interesting. As an engineer, I'm keen to get to know the
measuring tool or device for such detection.
> GR calls it the 'preferred frame', and
> the simplest marker for our motion through same is the CMBR anisotropy
> (which Relativists use for the 'preferred frame' in their PPN calculations).
Pardon, I'm ignorant. What is anisotropic ? How ?
>> and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
> LOL! It's called the Pioneer effect.
What has the Pioneer effect to do with a preferred frame ?
Could you derive it, or give me a reference ?
> The aether of Maxwell (when he
> derived 'his' equations) is a superfluid. 'Normal' matter entrained in a
> superfluid is experimentally indistinguishable in the lab from normal matter
> in a pure vacuum.
Oh. That means, that the superfluid does not exist, or is the same as
the pure vacuum. - Do you not notice, what crap you tell ?
Ulrich Bruchholz
Jay
> > however, as great as he is
> > i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
>
> Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
> are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
> "god"? For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
> as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity
[snipped]
well Patrick, i didn't mean you personally, so take it easy huh. but
i do have acquaintances who radiate the impression that they think
Einstein is some kind of "holy man" of physics and that other
physicist don't compare to him etc (like what was mentioned in one of
the other responses). i am not a hater of relativity or any other
theory that is well accepted by the scientific community, i simply
don't think that people should take a fanatical (even up to being
"religious" like) stand about a certain theory (again i am talking in
general here and not pointing at you). this will only hamper
acceptance of other legitimate theories (in the sense that it is not
one of the many theories proposed by crackpots who litter the
scientific community) which may emerge. personally, i find Einstein's
idea of relativity, its mathematics and its implications intriguing
and interesting.
cheers,
J.
György Szondy
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<pb11gb...@Muse2.private.de>...
> > Patrick Reany wrote:
> > > Some defamers of Einstein wrongfully charge him with being a nitwit
> > > pretender who stole his work from others. Einstein's own generation of
> > > physicists did not believe that. How is this contradiction to be
> > > resolved? Simple. The defamers are liars.
> >
> > Dear Patrick,
> > your efforts to defend Einstein against defamers are honourable.
> > But that may have been a problem during the Nazi time, i.e. 70 to 60
> > years ago. Nowadays, no serious human, neither in Germany nor
> > elsewhere, will doubt in Einstein as the essential originator
> > of SR/GR, and contributor of parts of QM.
>
> You should be more observant about the Einstein defaming that DOES go
> on periodically on the sci newsgroups. It's real, and it's real sick.
>
> I'll never understand Einstein hatred. Is it race hatred? Is it
> jealousy? Is it a combination of things? Of course, the Einstein
> haters will just turn around and scoff at the "Einstein lovers." This
> is a typical counterclaim and a red herring for sure. After all,
> Einstein is a bona fide genius in physics. I admire him, but I admire
> Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz, Heisenberg, Newton, Schrodinger, Bohr, Born,
> and Feynman too. I don't "love" any of these physicists, but I do
> admire them and appreciate the contributions they made to physics.
> (BTW, I rank Heisenberg as second to Einstein's genius in physics in
> the 20th century.)
>
> Why is Einstein singled out for such irrational hatred and obvious
> defamation? Why not Feynman or Heisenberg of Bohr? I would defend
> these physicists as well from obvious defamation were it necessary to
> do so. Feynman's QED theory is much more "non-classical" than anything
> Einstein ever proposed!
Dear Patric,
I agree with Ulrich that defaming Einstein does not necessary means
racism. GR is not an ideal theory, however it is still considered the
best ever for describing gravity.
However regreting scientific arguments by saying that they are induced
by racism is itself racism. So be aware the fact that the theory of
Einstein will be once (hopefully soon) replaced with a better theory.
Personally I consider his theory of gravitation being the one
currently holding physics back. "Noone dares to say that emperor has
no clothes" as someone said about him. Not because I hate Einstein,
but because I see the weak points and drawbacks of his theory (see
Brans and Dicke or Rosen, consider nonlinearity and problems with
GR-based quantum gravitation).
Cheers,
György
Tom Potter
Does anyone get the idea that Bilge has "lost it"?
That is, if he ever had "it".
As can be seen, Bilge denies that he posted:
"you are an idiot, a pathological liar, a sociopath.."
and he calls me a liar, for pointing out that he did.
I suggest that MORAL, rational, intelligent folks
can see who the liar is, and who calls posters low class names,
and who tries to redirect responses to his posts to a low class newsgroup,
rather than address the content of their posts.
I think that Bilge is going through a catharsis
and that he will be much more honest and moral,
and will react intellectually, rather than emotionally,
after he sorts things out.
I suggest that anyone who is in doubt about Bilge's
ethics and state of mind, just click on "reply"
and see how he is trying to misdirect any responses to his post.
Poor boy!
Gregory L. Hansen
Jay <bryan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>hi again,
>
>> > however, as great as he is
>> > i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
>>
>> Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
>> are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
>> "god"? For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
>> as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity
>
>[snipped]
>
> well Patrick, i didn't mean you personally, so take it easy huh. but
>i do have acquaintances who radiate the impression that they think
>Einstein is some kind of "holy man" of physics and that other
>physicist don't compare to him etc (like what was mentioned in one of
>the other responses). i am not a hater of relativity or any other
>theory that is well accepted by the scientific community, i simply
>don't think that people should take a fanatical (even up to being
>"religious" like) stand about a certain theory (again i am talking in
I've known people with a similar attitude towards John Lennon. Except
they're not derided as John Lennon worshippers. It's just considered a
more or less healthy admiration for a man with a message.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Randy Poe
t...@earthlink.net (Tom Potter) wrote in message news:<f76e0bb3.03080...@posting.google.com>...
You say yourself that the only item to which you are responding
in Bilge's post deals with this issue:
> Regarding the one rational point raised by Bilge,
> about my comment:
> "The fact that "deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to
> Einstein to review" is pretty solid proof that they were astounded
> by it, and not that they were "skeptical" and weren't going to
> "award deBroglie a ph.d"."
>
> I suggest that this statement makes my case.
> Can you imagine ANY PhD committee sending off the PhD paper
> of Mr. Joe Blow to a cultural icon, for his approval???
Bilge already answered this question in the material
you quote (which is EVERYTHING), to wit, yes he can imagine
it.
> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnbitjim....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> > >Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
> > >to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
> > >they award Joe Blow his PhD?
> >
> > No, but I can imagine a thesis committed sending a copy to einstein
> > in order to be fair and award a degree if the thesis committe was
> > skeptical about the thesis.
See, when you respond without reading, you end up repeating
yourself, asking questions that were already answered. And
as for quoting the entire rest of the post, that served
no purpose whatsoever. All it did was waste another few
gig worldwide on storage of the umpteenth copy of a post
that is already present on everybody's server.
THAT is why proper netiquette requires one to edit. Failure
to edit is considered an affront to one's readers.
- Randy
greywolf42
Patrick the priest really got his rosaries in a knot! Just HAD to rename
the thread to 'greywolf42 says that etherists have no principles'. And Mr.
Reany wonders why people say Relativists act like relativity is a
religion........
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<vita1hb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:844a1b64.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > > bryan...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message
> > news:<389652c7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > i think that we should all agree that Albert Einstein has made
> > > > great contributions to science and physics.
> > >
> > > Well, all of us don't, which is why I started this thread.
> > >
> > > > however, as great as he is
> > > > i prefer not to aggrandize him up to the level of some godhood,
> > >
> > > Who has treated Einstein as a "god"? Who has "aggrandize" him? What
> > > are the signs that someone is elevating Einstein to the level of a
> > > "god"?
> >
> > The relativists do it all the time. "So, you think you're as smart as
> > Einstein?" Einstein was a genius, etc....
>
> Would you say that your perceived "worshipping" of Einstein is more or
> less than that given by others to Galileo, Newton, Huygens, Plank,
> Maxwell, Lorentz, Bohr, Heisenberg, or Feynman?
I perceive the 'worship' of Einstein as far more than that for any other
'name' in physics. I believe this is due to the nature of Einstein's
'principle' approach. It attracts those with a need of absolutism and
creed.
> > And you -- Patrick -- are one of the prime purveyors of the Faith.
>
> I am NOT a purveyor of any faith. I simply maintain that physics is a
> search for theories that work, and SR works "better" than LET for all
> local phenomena. That's an objective statement.
LOL! "Better" is a value statement. Completely subjective.
> My proof is that more
> physics has been invented on top of relativity than on top of ether in
> the 20th century.
How do you measure the 'quantity' of physics? What units do you use?
Cowflops? Grant-dollars expended? Insults and put-downs directed?
> > > For my money, this whole notion that relativists treat Einstein
> > > as a "god" is pure bunk from people who hate relativity
> >
> > A classic defender-of-the-faith response.
>
> What makes my defense of Einstein's relativity more "worshipping" of
> Einstein on my part, by your characterization, than your defense of
> Galileo-Newton or Huygens, or Maxwell-Lorentz is "worshipping" of them
> on your part?
Look at the subject of this thread. Which you started. You aren't
defending 'relativity'. You attack anyone who questions relativity, by
accusing them of 'hating' Einstein. Your support is not done on the basis
of the theory -- but on the basis of finding a list of famous people who
claim that Einstein was a 'genius', 'unique', 'unmatched', etc. These
methods are the mark of a classic defender-of-the-faith.
My 'defenses' of the various theories of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz
(I don't recall writing about Huygens) are all done with regard to the
THEORIES. I don't call those who try to trash the theories 'haters' of the
theory or 'haters' of the men who wrote the theory. No matter how
underhanded the attack on the theory.
> > > and get so
> > > frustrated that relativists can always explain everything the
> > > etherists can except one thing: The Light Principle.
> >
> > I just LOVE it when you froth at the mouth so much that you apparently
write
> > the opposite of what you meant.
>
> There's a lot to froth at, to be sure. Like gross hypocrisy.
Please point out the hypocrisy. I missed it. (On review, I see that you
called me a hypocrite because you lumped me with Dennis' website.)
> > However, it's even funnier because what you
> > wrote is explicitly true (except for the 'frustration' part).
Relativists
> > can always find a way (after the fact) to find an explanation for what
the
> > aetherists predicted (i.e. Sagnac) -- except for the light principle.
>
> Einstein accepted the Light Principle as a direct empirical fact,
> explained or not.
LOL! A 'principle' is not 'empirical' by any philosopy that I know.
Einstein used Maxwell's equations (not empirical measurements) as the basis
of his assumption of the light principle. See the first sentence of
Einstein's 1905 paper.
> Is the Light Principle a measurement constant locally, or not?
According to SR with e-synching: yes. According to LET: no. According to
Maxwell: no.
> > An
> > aetherist finds that the constancy of the speed of light (relative to
the
> > aether) is a trivial explanation. A relativist must elevate the
'principle'
> > to the word of the prophet -- and accept it on faith.
>
> The Light Principle was never meant to be "explained" within SR,
> obviously. NO THEORY CAN EXPLAIN ITS OWN POSTULATES, LOGICALLY
> SPEAKING. Theories ARE de facto "explanations" of their predictions,
> not of their postulates.
I agree with your statement. However, it doesn't change the fact that the
Relativist must still accept this 'principle' on faith, alone. Aetherists
have a purely physical and quite simple explanation for a constant speed of
light, relative to the aether.
> Here's some questions for those smart etherists you keep talking
> about:
>
> 1) Why is there an ether?
Because the universe is not pure vacuum.
> 2) Why does the ether exist at rest in the inertial frame which is its
> actual rest frame, rather than some other inertial frame?
What a silly question! Why is the seashore always near the ocean?
The coordinate system in which the average momentum of the aether corpuscles
is zero is -- by definition -- the 'rest frame.' And please quit using the
term 'inertial frame' for aether theories. 'Inertial frames' are relativist
fictions. Aetherists use coordinate systems.
> 3) Why is ether matter essentially different from "normal" matter?
There is no such thing as 'aether matter.' Matter is composed of aether.
There are aether corpuscles.
> > > But then again,
> > > even the etherists can only introduce the fixed ether at the cost of
> > > the Pure Principle of Relativity.
>
> There has been a hell of a lot of NEW physics invented on the basis of
> the pure principle of relativity, including SR itself as a
> generalization of Galilean-Newtonian relativity. Show us the ether
> equivalent of all this physics founded on the pure principle of
> relativity in terms of ether theories. Show us how that ether theories
> have been the impetus for the invention of new theories since 1905.
Patrick, why did you find it necessary to reply to yourself? Got caught
with a blatantly silly statement?
> Explain radioactive decay on the basis of an ether theory.
Sure. Here's the thumbnail version:
Fundamental matter particles (protons, electrons, muons, etc) are
quasi-stable momentum structures within the aether fluid. Some (like the
proton, antiproton, electron and positron) are the lowest-energy state
structures available. Others (i.e. muons, pions, etc) are similar, but more
complex structures. Hence they are only quasistable. Now these momentum
structures exist within a corpuscular aether whose corpuscles have a
Maxwellian speed distribution. The matter structures therefore interact
with corpuscles with a wide range of speeds. Every so often (probability
calculable from the Maxwellian speed distribution function) a matter
structure will be 'hit' by a corpuscle or corpuscles with sufficiently high
speed to 'knock' the matter structure far enough out of alignment to allow
the matter structure to collapse into a lower energy state (or states).
[Beta decay is the simplest of these transitions.] Thus, radioactive decay
is a direct result of the maxwellian distribution of the aether corpuscles.
The fun part is that when you work out what happens to those probabilities
as you move the matter structure through the aether fluid. The probability
of the matter structure encountering a 'rogue' corpuscle of suffiently
'higher' speed drops.... proportional to sqrt(1 - v_particle^2/c^2). Purely
because of the Maxwellian probability distribution of the material, aether
corpuscles.
---------------------------
Now, Patrick, explain radioactive decay solely on the basis of special or
general relativity.
Oh, right, I knew you couldn't. That's another defender-of-the-faith
tactic. Insisting that opposing views do something of which your own theory
is not capable.
> > That is not a cost. That's a benefit. Those who deal in 'principles'
> > have left science for religion.
>
> Are you telling us that etherists have NO principles at all?
A 'principle' as used by Einstein and the relativists is a ex cathedra
declaration of a universal 'law of nature.' Immuatble, without physical
explanation or foundation. And there are no 'laws of nature' in the
scientific method. Einstein's relativity is a principle -- not a theory.
Aetherists have postulates. (There is an aether.) The exact postulates
depend upon the particular theory being addressed. These postulates are
scientifically testable, because the postulates have specific, physical
consequences.
> If so,
> then how do etherists get started on a research program?
However they like. The same way Maxwell, Heaviside, Galileo, Newton, etc
did -- before the coming of the prophet Einstein and his 'principles.'
> The ether
> theory was originally an extension of the Mechanical Program started
> by Newton.
It wasn't an 'extension'. It is part of the mechanical program. The
scientific method is part of the mechanical program.
> The mechanical ether failed without adding into it a lot of
> ad hoc postulates, as Lorentz himself admitted.
Another classic defender-of-the-faith approach. Rather than point to one or
more 'ad hoc postulates' of the 'mechanical aether' (which you haven't
defined), you invoke a classic appeal to authority fallacy. Thus
simultaneously avoiding identifying a 'failing' (that could be seen to be
fallacious) and invoking reverance of authority. And no reference, either.
> Poincare claimed that
> anything can be "explained" in terms of "mechanical" theories, which
> only proves that humans are clever enough to invent a mechanical
> theory as the situation requires within some formal point of view.
Another defender-of-the-faith tactic is to try to smother the opposition
with sheer quantity of appeals to authority. And it helps if these are not
relevant.
> Why don't you define for us what a "mechanical" theory really is.
And the defender-of-the-faith tactic of constantly demanding irrelevant
definitions.
We're not discussing the philosophical basis of a general mechanical theory.
We are discussing your claim that only people who 'hate' Einstein or
relativity disagree with SR.
> > > And ether makes a poor medium for the strong and weak forces,
> >
> > LOL! The aether is fundamentally discrete at small distances -- giving
rise
> > to QM, EM, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. SR, on the
> > other hand, is required to be fully continuous -- and fails in all but
EM
> > (from which it was presumed).
>
> Show us all the calculations that make this work for the strong and
> weak forces! In terms of point mass particles, of course.
Point particles don't exist in the aether. Or in the real universe. They
are mathematical fictions.
So while we wait, you can provide the ultimate derivation of the masses and
charges of all the fundamental particles -- starting solely from SR and GR.
No extraneous assumptions allowed.
> There aren't virtual etherons are there?
No. 'Virtual' particles are mathematical fictions in QM.
> Show it for gravitation as well.
See "Pushing Gravity", Aperion, April 2002, 'Deriving Newton's Gravitational
law from a Le Sage Mechanism' and 'Dynamic Effects in Le Sage models.'
> What is Feynman's QED in terms of your ether theory?
What is QED in terms of SR? (No additional assumptions, please).
> I'm really interested in your mechanical model of charge attraction
> between two oppositely charged mass particles. Or for two
> gravitationally attracting bodies too.
Then you don't need me to repost them here. I've given them to you often
enough. So I'll simply point you (one more time) to Maxwell's derivations
in 1861: "On Physical Lines of Force" for the former. And "Pushing
Gravity".
> > > not to mention that it is completely undetectable
> >
> > LOL! It's detected all the time.
>
> Prove it!
Yet another defender-of-the-faith response. "Prove it!" Of course you (as
a 'philosopher of science') are well aware that there is no such thing as a
proof of a theory. Hence you show your religious basis for your demand.
> How is it detected and by whom? Where is the scientific
> record of these "detections"?
I gave you a list. All you had to do was continue reading.
> >GR calls it the 'preferred frame', and
>
> Prove it! Show us an irrefutable authoritative reference for this term
> 'preferred frame' in GR. Preferred for what exactly?
LOL! That 'proof' demand, again. Nothing is 'irrefutable.' And I gave you
one. Will. "Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics." Remember
Will? "Mr. GR?" This is the book referenced by Steve Carlip innumerable
times. See section 8.2. See innumerable posts on same.
> Are you claiming a relationship between YOUR ether and Einstein's GR
> "ether"?
I'm claiming that according to GR (Will, Einstein), there must be a
'preferred frame' for GR to work. And that 'space' has physical properties
(including said preferred frame). These physical properties coincide with
the properties of an aether. And the physical aether makes the same
predictions as the weak-field approximation of GR (which -- according to
Shutz) is all that we can test in GR.
> > the simplest marker for our motion through same is the CMBR anisotropy
> > (which Relativists use for the 'preferred frame' in their PPN
calculations).
>
> Relativity is the philosophy in physics that physics can be built upon
> principles that do NOT require the use of any notion of an absolute
> space in the classical sense of the term. This goes infinitely beyond
> the trivial notion of a "preferred" space for calculation.
Unfortunately, your 'philosophy' is at odds with the substance of GR. And
beyond the claims of experimental validation of GR.
> What is the relationship between YOUR ether matter and the
> distribution of "normal matter" within the universe?
Aether corpuscles (not aether matter) are everywhere. Matter isn't. Matter
is composed of aether.
> How does YOUR ether theory make use of the equivalence of
> gravitational and inertial mass equality?
It derives it from first principles -- in the weak solution. Gravitational
mass and inertial mass diverge in the strong limit.
> > > and seems to not slow down matter that moves through it,
> >
> > LOL! It's called the Pioneer effect.
>
> Prove it! Give irrefutable scientific references.
There's that priestly demand for 'proof' again. There's that priestly
demand for 'irrefutable' references.
Back at you for a change, Patrick. Do you understand the term 'Feynman
drag?' That old chestnut that was used to 'prove' that aether theories
always lead to planets spiralling into the Sun?
> > The aether of Maxwell (when he
> > derived 'his' equations) is a superfluid.
>
> So what, and prove it!
The priestly demand for proof again. See "On Physical Lines of Force."
> > 'Normal' matter entrained in a
> > superfluid is experimentally indistinguishable in the lab from normal
matter
> > in a pure vacuum.
>
> Define "'Normal' matter."
Protons, electrons, atoms, molecules.
> > > as one would expect of a mechanical medium.
> >
> > You're batting zero, Priest. You just WON'T look through Galileo's
> > telescope.
>
> I heard it's broken.
I believe that's exactly what Cardinal Bellarmine claimed. :)
After all, he'd heard the planets appeared larger, while the stars appeared
smaller. Plus it showed apparent imperfections in the 'perfect' heavens.
Obviously, it was broken.
> > > What constitutes a "proper" explanation is in the eye of the beholder.
> > > There is no such thing as a "true" theory.
> >
> > Amen to the Faithful.
>
> Faithful yourself, Oh Priest of the invisible ether! Oh Priest of the
> Mechanical Dogma. Hypocrite!
The mechanical program (the scientific method) is not dogma. You are free
to follow your Platonic reverie without hindrance from me. You just can't
claim you're using science.
> From the website
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/Index.html
>
> I found this:
>
> SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM
> The Derivation of All Science From Newtonian Contact Forces
> By
> Dennis McCarthy
???? I'm not Dennis.
Another classic defender-of-the-faith tactic. Lump all who disagree in any
fashion into the same group. Claim that if you disagree about any part of
the faith (SR), then you share the beliefs of anyone else who disagrees on
any other point.
{Snipped Dennis' site as irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I am not
responsible for Dennis' website.}
> ------------------
>
> Want more proof of faith:
>
> On the same website I found this:
{Note: This is still Dennis' website. Not mine.}
> 'It is inconceivable to doubt that light consists in the motion of
> some sort of matter......(A)t least in the true Philosophy, in which
> one conceives the causes of all natural effects in terms of mechanical
> motions. This, in my opinion, we must necessarily do or else renounce
> all hopes of ever comprehending anything in Physics."
> --Christiaan Huygens, Treatise on Light (1675)
Now at least I know where you got that earlier reference to Huygens. You
were lumping the heathens together. Classic priest.
> The "true philosophy"? Yeah right! Prove it true!
You should ask Huygens for a defense of his claim -- not me.
> Ya know, it would be very much more convincing an argument on your
> part if you could show the support of modern physicists (i.e., post
> WWII) for your material ether theory.
Great work Bellarmine, the classic religious approach. Give me authority!
> One more thing. If you fail to intelligently answer everyone of my
> questions I put to you this time, then from now on you're persona non
> grata to me. I don't have time for fools that won't reply honestly and
> dilligently.
ROTFLMAO! Hey bozo! I don't have to answer all of your boorish demands --
even though it amused me to do so. You would also be less of a hypocrite if
you admitted that you (SR) can't do half the stuff you demanded of me.
> And another thing. Don't edit out or manipulate anything I wrote in
> this post.
LOL!!!!
Closing with the final projection of the Faithful! The classic relativist
approach is to snip the bejabbers out of posts that point out the
multitudinal failings of SR (without notice of course). Here Patrick
implies that I do such things. Which is hilarious -- since the usual gang
of suspects constant accuses me of throwing 'smokescreens' by putting back
things that THEY have snipped or reordered.
Patrick, you need to meditate for a while. Or at least take some deep
breaths. You'll blow a blood vessel at this rate.
Patrick Reany
>
[snip]
> > One more thing. If you fail to intelligently answer everyone of my
> > questions I put to you this time, then from now on you're persona non
> > grata to me. I don't have time for fools that won't reply honestly and
> > dilligently.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Hey bozo! I don't have to answer all of your boorish demands --
> even though it amused me to do so. You would also be less of a hypocrite if
> you admitted that you (SR) can't do half the stuff you demanded of me.
That's it between you and me. Laugh it up.
Patrick
greywolf42
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03080...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<vivrvqs...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:844a1b64.03080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> [snip]
> > > One more thing. If you fail to intelligently answer everyone of my
> > > questions I put to you this time, then from now on you're persona non
> > > grata to me. I don't have time for fools that won't reply honestly and
> > > dilligently.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO! Hey bozo! I don't have to answer all of your boorish
demands --
> > even though it amused me to do so. You would also be less of a
hypocrite if
> > you admitted that you (SR) can't do half the stuff you demanded of me.
>
>
> That's it between you and me. Laugh it up.
Even though I answered every one of your questions? And I did it honestly
and diligently? And didn't snip your post (as you demanded)?
Your response is to snip everything and not respond. Priest and hypocrite.
I guess even you couldn't continue the level of silliness. But I guess it's
better for your blood pressure.
Tom Potter
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:5OHXa.906$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tom is having fun
while trying to dispel the bullshit about
"deBroglie's thesis committe denying him a degree.
It was obvious to everyone that deBroglie had come up
with a killer idea, and had presented his case very clearly.
As I posted,
"Can you imagine ANY "thesis committe" sending the thesis of Joe Blow
to the most renown person in ANY field to get his opinion, before
they award Joe Blow his PhD?"
I think Bilge's agenda is to give credit to his God almighty
for all things great and small.
I may be wrong about the "small".
Maybe Bilge would let someone else other than his God
get the credit for a small thing.
Tom Potter
> This is a comment on your predilection for wasting space.
>
>
> t...@earthlink.net (Tom Potter) wrote in message news:<f76e0bb3.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>
> You say yourself that the only item to which you are responding
> in Bilge's post deals with this issue:
>
> > Regarding the one rational point raised by Bilge,
> > about my comment:
> > "The fact that "deBroglie's thesis committe sent the thesis to
> > Einstein to review" is pretty solid proof that they were astounded
> > by it, and not that they were "skeptical" and weren't going to
> > "award deBroglie a ph.d"."
> >
> > I suggest that this statement makes my case.
> >
> > Can you imagine ANY PhD committee sending off the PhD paper
> > of Mr. Joe Blow to a cultural icon, for his approval???
>
> Bilge already answered this question in the material
> you quote (which is EVERYTHING), to wit, yes he can imagine
> it.
"Imagination is funny.
It makes a cloudy day sunny."
But it doesn't make Einstein a God,
nor conjure up actual, conncurrent, historical proof
no matter how hard you imagine.
I imagine that you and Bilge are deluding yourselves,
by thinking that "deBroglie's thesis committe"
was too ignorant to comprehend the significance of deBroglie's
paper, and that they were so naivee that they sent the paper of
a grad student off to an outside reviewer, before they would
give deBroglie his degree.
Certainly most of the physicists immediately recognized the
significance of deBroglie's paper, as it stimulated the
thoughts that resulted in quantum mechanics,
and it got deBroglie a Nobel Prize in five years,
(A very short time frame.)
even though Einstein was fighting quantum mechanics
tooth and nail during this period.