Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

By David Blair for Ockham's Razor

 
Einsteinian physics gives us our best understanding of the natural world, so why are we still hung up on Newton?
Isaac Newton is a physics icon, but he was wrong.
Sure, three hundred years ago, his discoveries about gravity and the laws governing motion revolutionised the world.
And yes, sure, those discoveries led to an incredibly useful mechanistic, deterministic view of the universe – in which one thing causes another.
It's the story we all still learn in school. But Einstein proved it was wrong a century ago.
What did Newton get wrong?
While Newton saw time and space as absolute, Einstein proved that time is relative – it depends on height and speed.
And space? Einstein said that space is curved by matter. So parallel lines will always cross, because space is never flat.
It's mind blowing. And it's not what we're taught in school.
Our kids still learn that time is absolute. And parallel lines never meet. In fact every bit of geometry you learn at school is approximate, because Newton's fundamental assumption about the fixed nature of space was false.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... s/11789858

--- what are they talking about (?) Time is absolute. Einstein never proved otherwise. Sounds like they want to start lying to children instead of stop lying.

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Roger,

Time is not absolute.  It is relative rate of change.  No change = no time.

Sent from Mobil phone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

define what you mean by "absolute"

absolute time is time relative to a preferred/absolute frame.

[verhey....@gmail.com]

 

Search Results

Search for a word

ab·so·lute

/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/

adjective

1. 1.

   not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

   "absolute secrecy"

   synonyms:

   complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2. 2.

   viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.

   "absolute moral standards"

   synonyms:

   universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist;  rigid, established, set, settled, definite, decided, irrevocable, unalterable, unquestionable, authoritative, incontrovertible, in black and white "absolute moral standards"

noun

PHILOSOPHY

1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

   "good and evil are presented as absolutes"

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: ROGER ANDERTON

Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 12:21 PM

To: Slobodan Nedic;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;HARRY RICKER;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;Ivor Catt;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

define what you mean by "absolute"

absolute time is time relative to a preferred/absolute frame.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

ok, so the term is used to mean other things

as per wiki: Absolute space and time is a concept in physics and philosophy about the properties of the universe. In physics, absolute space and time may be a preferred frame.

On Friday, 13 December 2019, 19:34:54 GMT, verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Search Results

DICTIONARY

Search for a word

ab·so·lute

/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/

adjective

1. 1.

1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

   "absolute secrecy"

1. synonyms:

   complete, total, utter, out-an d-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2. 2.

1. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.

   "absolute moral standards"

1. synonyms:

1. universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist;

1. rigid, established, set, settled, definite,&n bsp;decided, irrevocable, unalterable, unquestionable, authoritative, incontrovertible, in black and white "absolute moral standards"

Sent from Mobil phone

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Roger,

So having established that the term is ambigious you advocate we should dictate to children rather than sharing these alternative views and letting them decide for themselves.

"--- what are they talking about (?) Time is absolute. Einstein never proved otherwise. Sounds like they want to start lying to children instead of stop lying.

"

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: ROGER ANDERTON

Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 12:42 PM

To: Slobodan Nedic;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;HARRY RICKER;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;Ivor Catt;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

ok, so the term is used to mean other things

as per wiki: Absolute space and time is a concept in physics and philosophy about the properties of the universe. In physics, absolute space and time may be a preferred

 frame.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>you advocate we should dictate to children rather than sharing these alternative views and letting them decide for themselves.<<

never said that

 

Search Results

adjective

1. 2.

1. synonyms:

1. rigid, established, set, settled, definite,&n bsp;decided, irrevocable, unalterable, unquestionable, authoritative, inco ntrovertible, in black and white "absolute moral standards"

Sent from Mobil phone

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Roger

Seems like you did.

"what are they talking about (?) Time is absolute. Einstein never proved otherwise. Sounds like they want to start lying to children instead of stop lying.

"

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: ROGER ANDERTON

Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 2:23 PM

To: Slobodan Nedic;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;HARRY RICKER;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;Ivor Catt;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

>>you advocate we should dictate to children rather than sharing these alternative views and letting them decide for themselves.<<

never said that

[ROGER ANDERTON]

seems like I didn't

what I said had no connection to what you thought I said

 

Search Results

adjective

1. 2.

1. synonyms:

1. rigid, < span class="ydpa3ff2029yiv4350917802SDZsVb" style="cursor: pointer; color: rgb(25, 103, 210); min-height: 999999px;">established, set, settled, definite,&n bsp;decided, irrevocable, unalterable, unquestionable, authoritative, inco ntrovertible, in black and white "absolute moral standards"

Sent from Mobil phone

[Pete Moore]

You can’t curve absolute nothing. The problem with Einstein is that he had absolutely no idea of what vacuum space is made of! Two parallel lines can never cross or they were not parallel to begin with. Now if you are talking about two parallel laser beams that start out parallel you might have an argument if you can draw it and you can define and simulate the Aether medium by which the beams propagate. If you take a thin sheet of balloon rubber and stretch it evenly and draw two parallel lines on it and then further stretch or relax parts of it unevenly, you certainly can create a portion where the two lines are non-parallel but you can’t make them cross provided that some tension remains in all parts of the rubber sheet. To say two parallel lines meet because of Einstein’s theory is ridiculous!

Simhony EPOLA MODEL does predict that vacuum space can be distorted by matter. As Newton theorized it could be more or less rarified (made lower or higher modulus of elasticity). Light going through glass is going through a part of the Aether (EPOLA) that has been made more rarified (lower modulus) by the nuclear mass particles of the glass. Thus, the speed of light propagates in the glass at a Slower speed! Time did not slow down the speed of light propagation slowed down! The same is true of vacuum space near an object like the sun where it travels slower as compared to the vacuum space further out which is faster and beyond Pluto where it travels faster still! The Mariner 6 & 7 radio wave paths that travel in a line that takes it near the Sun as they travel from Earth to Mars (takes more time per mile traveled, speed of light slower) and back again compared to other times when the line path is beyond earth’s orbit out to Mars (takes less time mile traveled , speed of light faster) demonstrates the Shapiro Effect. 

Pete Moore

Houston

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2019, at 1:12 PM, "verhey....@gmail.com" <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[verhey....@gmail.com]

Pete,

"The problem with Einstein is that he had absolutely no idea of what vacuum space is made of!"

" Simhony EPOLA MODEL  "

Neiter did Simhony.  Its just a crude analogous MODEL .

Cornelis Verhey

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: Pete Moore

Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 5:07 PM

To: verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: ROGER ANDERTON;Slobodan Nedic;David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Relativity googlegroups.com;HARRY RICKER;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;Ivor Catt;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

You can’t curve absolute nothing. The problem with Einstein is that he had absolutely no idea of what vacuum space is made of! Two parallel lines can never cross or they were not parallel to begin with. Now if you are talking about two parallel laser beams that start out parallel you might have an argument if you can draw it and you can define and simulate the Aether medium by which the beams propagate. If you take a thin sheet of balloon rubber and stretch it evenly and draw two parallel lines on it and then further stretch or relax parts of it unevenly, you certainly can create a portion where the two lines are non-parallel but you can’t make them cross provided that some tension remains in all parts of the rubber sheet. To say two parallel lines meet because of Einstein’s theory is ridiculous!

Simhony EPOLA MODEL does predict that vacuum space can be distorted by matter. As Newton theorized it could be more or less rarified (made lower or higher modulus of elasticity). Light going through glass is going through a part of the Aether (EPOLA) that has been made more rarified (lower modulus) by the nuclear mass particles of the glass. Thus, the speed of light propagates in the glass at a Slower speed! Time did not slow down the speed of light propagation slowed down! The same is true of vacuum space near an object like the sun where it travels slower as compared to the vacuum space further out which is faster and beyond Pluto where it travels faster still! The Mariner 6 & 7 radio wave paths that travel in a line that takes it near the Sun as they travel from Earth to Mars (takes more time per mile traveled, speed of light slower) and back again compared to other times when the line path is beyond earth’s orbit out to Mars (takes less time mile traveled , speed of light faster) demonstrates the Shapiro Effect. 

Pete Moore

Houston

Sent from my iPhone

[HARRY RICKER]

Roger,

This is a typical example of what is wrong with establishment physics. They are continuing to fight a war that they already won. Because they don't really believe that Einstein won the war against Newton, they are still fighting it. Unfortunately, Einstein and Newton are both wrong. 

The fact that they think that criticism of Einstein is a defense of Newton, and the fact that they are insecure about Einstein's theory, means that they can not accept any criticism of Einstein, who is manifestly incorrect. So we can not move beyond this impasse, that criticism of Einstein is viewed as a return to the old theories of Newton and the aether. They are still fighting the old war that they have already won. In doing that, they are blind to the fact that Einstein is also wrong.

Harry

[HARRY RICKER]

Cornelis,

You correctly stated this: Time is not absolute.  It is relative rate of change.  No change = no time. The problem is clocks continue to tick even if they don't move, or if they are in isolation with nothing around them to reference change. So time is empirically an established fact of physics. Attempting to define time, independently of the empirical facts is not a fruitful enterprise for physics. 

The definitions of absolute are incorrect for use in physics, because both Newton and Einstein use metaphysics. In physics absolute means relative to the conventional definition of measurement scale. Both Einstein and Newton are wrong in the way they have defined the measurement of time. Newton says time is absolute in the sense provided in the definitions you cited. Einstein is wrong is saying that there is no absolute. If you have no absolute, you can not do physics or correct mathematics. So both of these opinions, Newton and Einstein, are wrong. It is a defective, misleading, and false debate, trying to decide who is correct, when both opinions are false.

Harry

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Harry,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the statement below so my commenting may not be appropriate.

"The problem is clocks continue to tick even if they don't move, or if they are in isolation with nothing around them to reference change."

Is it like the old philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception? "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

"Einstein is wrong in saying that there is no absolute. If you have no absolute, you can not do physics or correct mathematics."  Having absolute correct mathmatics in my view means knowing the state of the entire system.  Since that system is the entire connected universe it is possible to only have an approximation.  Do you not agree?

Cornelis Verhey

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: HARRY RICKER

Date: Sat, Dec 14, 2019 5:57 AM

To: ROGER ANDERTON;Slobodan Nedic;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;Ivor Catt;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

Cornelis,

You correctly stated this: Time is not absolute.  It is relative rate of change.  No change = no time. The problem is clocks continue to tick even if they don't move, or if they are in isolation with nothing around them to reference change. So time is empirically an established fact of physics. Attempting to define time, independently of the empirical facts is not a fruitful enterprise for physics. 

The definitions of absolute are incorrect for use in physics, because both Newton and Einstein use metaphysics. In physics absolute means relative to the conventional definition of measurement scale. Both Einstein and Newton are wrong in the way they have defined the measurement of time. Newton says time is absolute in the sense provided in the definitions you cited. Einstein is wrong is saying that there is no absolute. If you have no absolute, you can not do physics or correct mathematics. So both of these opinions, Newton and Einstein, are wrong. It is a defective, misleading, and false debate, trying to decide who is correct, when both opinions are false.

Harry

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Something like that Harry.

But I don't really see how you can assert what is going on in the minds of Einstein-supporters.

>>Because they don't really believe that Einstein won the war against Newton, they are still fighting it.<<

so "they" when - "they" claim Einstein won over Newton, don't really believe that (?)

As for Newton, if we had not been diverted onto Einstein, then we would still be working on how to fix the problems with Newtonian physics.

Roger A

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/94073011.8278884.1576326771186%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ivor Catt]

But the Royal Society is publishing recent advances beyond Einstein.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x9492.htm

The Royal Society talks about the first Wakefield Experiment, conducted in 2013. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf . Then came Wakefield 2, 3 and 4

Ivor Catt

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Is there a point to sending us these links as they makes no comment on Einstein?

Sent from Mobil phone

[HARRY RICKER]

Cornelis,

What Einstein did was confuse philosophical time, that is a metaphysical conception of time, with physical time, which has a specific physical definition called UTC, and which has its implementation in the social use of clocks to keep time. Such clocks keep time irrespective of their any reference to change in their environment. That is they establish as an empirical fact the existence of physical time as defined to be UTC.

Hence what both Newton and Einstein say about time is obsolete, because they are talking about the metaphysical concept of time, and not the scientific concept of physical time, which is subject to measurement by clocks. Much of the confusion in discussing Einstein and time and space is produced by the fact that Einstein's theory is a metaphysical conception of time and space and not a physical conception of those concepts. Because Einstein's theory is metaphysical, or philosophical, he defines time and space in a way that produces contradictory results of mathematical calculations, because the postulates he uses can not be used to describe physical time and space correctly. 

In one sense Newton's concept of absolute philosophical time is better than Einstein's because he defines time and space according to mathematical rules, which produce no contradictions, when applied to calculations of physical time and space. The rejection of Newton's absolutes is a major flaw in Einstein's concepts, because there the mathematics produces an infinite number of different results of calculations, each contradicting every other result. In other words each different observer in a different frame of reference measures a different physical state of events. Hence his mathematics produces paradoxes and contradictions because of its assumed postulates.

We know that both theories are contradicted by the empirical facts although the Einstein theory is said to be correct despite this fact. 

Harry

[verhey....@gmail.com]

Harry

Because his reply seemed out of place my comment to Ivor was this " Is there a point to sending us these links as they make no comment on Einstein? "

Perhaps you see where it fits into the discussion.

You comments to me seem out of place as well.  If they are a response to something I said in an email perhaps you want to reply to that email.

 

I really don't care much for discussing straw man second hand opinions of what Einstein said or meant.

On a side note Einstein's 1879 birth predates the beginning of the specific physical definition of physical time.

 "Universal Time was actually created during the Washington Meridian Conference held in 1884. This is when the idea of a 24-hour time zone -- a concept we currently use -- came into fruition and became adopted widely."

Cornelis Verhey

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: HARRY RICKER

Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2019 6:02 AM

To: Ivor Catt;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: Slobodan Nedic;ROGER ANDERTON;David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;Steve Crothers;Monika Vandory;Libuse Mikova;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

Cornelis,

What Einstein did was confuse philosophical time, that is a metaphysical conception of time, with physical time, which has a specific physical definition called UTC, and which has its implementation in the social use of clocks to keep time. Such clocks keep time irrespective of their any reference to change in their environment. That is they establish as an empirical fact the existence of physical time as defined to be UTC.

Hence what both Newton and Einstein say about time is obsolete, because they are talking about the metaphysical concept of time, and not the scientific concept of physical time, which is subject to measurement by clocks. Much of the confusion in discussing Einstein and time and space is produced by the fact that Einstein's theory is a metaphysical conception of time and space and not a physical conception of those concepts. Because Einstein's theory is metaphysical, or philosophical, he defines time and space in a way that produces contradictory results of mathematical calculations, because the postulates he uses can not be used to describe physical time and space correctly. 

In one sense Newton's concept of absolute philosophical time is better than Einstein's because he defines time and space according to mathematical rules, which produce no contradictions, when applied to calculations of physical time and space. The rejection of Newton's absolutes is a major flaw in Einstein's concepts, because there the mathematics produces an infinite number of different results of calculations, each contradicting every other result. In other words each different observer in a different frame of reference measures a different physical state of events. Hence his mathematics produces paradoxes and contradictions because of its assumed postulates.

We know that both theories are contradicted by the empirical facts although the Einstein theory is said to be correct despite this fact. 

Harry

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>On a side note Einstein's 1879 birth predates the beginning of the specific phy sical definition of physical time.

 "Universal Time was actually created during the Washington Meridian Conference held in 1884. This is when the idea of a 24-hour time zone -- a concept we currently use -- came into fruition and became adopted widely."<<

what was being referred to was how the clocks are synchronized, and the method now used is - Einstein synchronization

see wiki for rough outline: Einstein synchronisation

Einstein synchronisation According to Albert Einstein's prescription from 1905, a light signal is sent at time ...

As for Einstein's understanding of "time", there was a big argument between Bergson and Einstein on that; Bergson deemed Einstein got it wrong, and it is thought one of the reasons why Einstein did not get a Nobel prize for relativity:

This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity - Issue 35: Boundaries - Nautilus

This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity - Issue... On April 6, 1922, Einstein met a man he would never forget. He was one of the most celebrated philosophers of th...

On Monday, 16 December 2019, 15:30:16 GMT, verhey....@gmail.com <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Harry

Because his reply seemed out of place my comment to Ivor was this " Is there a point to sending us these links as they make no comment on Einstein? "

Perhaps you see where it fits into the discussion.

You comments to me seem out of place as well.  If they are a response to something I said in an email perhaps you want to reply to that email.

 

I really don't care much for discussing straw man second hand opinions of what Einstein said or meant.

On a side note Einstein's 1879 birth predates the beginning of the specific phy sical definition of physical time.

 "Universal Time was actually created during the Washington Meridian Conference held in 1884. This is when the idea of a 24-hour time zone -- a concept we currently use -- came into fruition and became adopted widely."

Cornelis Verhey

Sent from Mobil phone

------ Original message------

From: HARRY RICKER

Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2019 6:02 AM

To: Ivor Catt;verhey....@gmail.com;

Cc: Slobodan Nedic;ROGER ANDERTON;David Tombe;IMontgomery52Private;robert....@rcn.com;Carl Reiff;Franklin Hu;Akinbo Ojo;Pete Moore;Relativity googlegroups.com;Roger Rydin;RGG at epola;mon...@aol.com;Viraj Fernando;Sung...@aol.com;Mark CreekWater;Sepp Hasslberger;fro...@ieee.org;REUBENUHR;Goeffrey Neuzil;KISRAY;Richard Warren Field;STRES. ES;Misheck Kirimi;Robert Fritzius;Hartwig Thim;Peter Rowlands;Reg Cahill;John Fiala;Christopher Provatidis;David Taylor;dgsasso,;Harvey Fiala;Mike Gamble;Yuri Keilman;Musa D. Abdullahi;Pal Asija;ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης;almcd999;electr...@gmail.com;Roger Munday;Steve Crothers;Monika Vandory;Lib use Mikova;

Subject:Re: Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics

Cornelis,

What Einstein did was confuse philosophical time, that is a metaphysical conception of time, with physical time, which has a specific physical definition called UTC, and which has its implementation in the social use of clocks to keep time. Such clocks keep time irrespective of their any reference to change in their environment. That is they establish as an empirical fact the existence of physical time as defined to be UTC.

Hence what both Newton and Einstein say about time is obsolete, because they are talking about the metaphysical concept of time, and not the scientific concept of physical time, which is subject to measurement by clocks. Much of the confusion in discussing Einstein and time and space is produced by the fact that Einstein's theory is a metaphysic al conception of time and space and not a physical conception of those concepts. Because Einstein's theory is metaphysical, or philosophical, he defines time and space in a way that produces contradictory results of mathematical calculations, because the postulates he uses can not be used to describe physical time and space correctly. 

In one sense Newton's concept of absolute philosophical time is better than Einstein's because he defines time and space according to mathematical rules, which produce no contradictions, when applied to calculations of physical time and space. The rejection of Newton's absolutes is a major flaw in Einstein's concepts, because there the mathematics produces an infinite number of different results of calculations, each contradicting every other result. In other words each different observer in a different frame of reference measures a different physical state of eve nts. Hence his mathematics produces paradoxes and contradictions because of its assumed postulates.

We know that both theories are contradicted by the empirical facts although the Einstein theory is said to be correct despite this fact. 

Harry

[Ivor Catt]

I failed to add certain key points to my email of 15 dec., below the @@@@@@@

Einstein (and Feynman) said that the basis of relativity is Maxwell's Equations of the Electromagnetic Field. You can find the quotes on my website. Google for E + F + Catt. Einstein and Feynman have the wrong version of the TEM wave, with changing E causing H and changing H causing E. This is falsified when your computer sends a single step from your computer to your printer telling it to start printing (with the H signal, not tho rolling wave.) (which E said would be absurd).

Einstein ruled out the TEM pulse as absurd. “If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations .” However, here (Figures 7, 8) we see the absurd, a narrow TEM pulse travelling unchanged at the speed of light. Also, Maxwell’s Equations are about that very thing - an unchanging waveform travelling forward at the speed of light. 1 , 2 .  

This is in my article "The Heaviside Signal" on my website. 

I have three of four articles on my website pointing pout the flaws in  Maxwell's Equations.

Proper scientists like you lot should go back to fundamentals. Don't stick at what Einstein said, go back to what E says is the basis of what he said.

@@@@@@@@ 

Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>	15 Dec 2019, 00:01 (1 day ago)
to Steve, Monika, Libuse, HARRY, Slobodan, ROGER, David, IMontgomery52Private, robert....@rcn.com, Carl, Franklin, Cornelis, Akinbo, Pete, Relativity, Roger, RGG, monitek, Viraj, Sung...@aol.com, Mark, Sepp, frothw, REUBENUHR, Goeffrey, KISRAY, Richard, ES, Misheck, Robert, Hartwig, Peter, Reg, John, Christopher, David, dgsasso,, Harvey, Mike, Yuri, Musa, Pal, ΛευτέρηςΠαναγιωτίδης, almcd999, electroscalar, Roger

But the Royal Society is publishing recent advances beyond Einstein.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/yak.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x9492.htm

The Royal Society talk

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Because Einstein's theory is metaphysical, or philosophical, he defines time and space in a way that produces contradictory results of mathematical calculations, because the postulates he uses can not be used to describe physical time and space correctly. <<

something like that.

Given the starting point as-

In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:

1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and
2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

Special relativity

Special relativity Some of the work of Albert Einstein in special relativity is built on the earlier work by Hendrik Lorentz.

He supposedly gets time dilation.

So, consider scenario-

A frame and B frame moving at constant velocity with respect to each other.

From A frame the person has clock A1 and observes clock B1 in B frame, supposedly B1 clock is going slower.

Now let there be another clock A2 in  A frame that is set to go at same rate as B1 clock. Therefore clock A2 is slower than A1. If person in A frame uses clock A2 to measure lightspeed it cannot be the same value as A1 clock gives. Therefore postulate 2 not holding for A2 clock; is that supposed to be allowed or what (?) Answer: not enough information given by Einstein, so been left ambiguous, so theory not properly defined, therefore fails .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/67022886.9151501.1576501365397%40mail.yahoo.com

.