Wonderful Idea!

[patd...@comcast.net]

Glad I'm here.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Hi! I sent someone with your name a message on Academia.edu... Welcome back!

Check out Mr Anderton's additions to the list of critics.

On Saturday, March 16, 2024 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-7 patd...@comcast.net wrote:

Glad I'm here.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I also emailed Tom Roberts and Paul Anderson and received no reply in about a week.

I tried to find Richard Hertz and Ken Seto.

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, March 16, 2024 at 6:02:05 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

I also emailed Tom Roberts and Paul Anderson and received no reply in about a week.

Don't hold your breath, they do not suffer cranks very well... 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

They are self-deceiving pseudo-scientists believing in the fraud of relativity. Their defenses of it were pathetic. Like your lame comments.

[Paul Alsing]

Cranks can only spout nonsense since they cannot possibly offer anything resembling evidence.

Evidence rules... got any?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You've never provided any evidence. Stop throwing hotdogs in the rink!

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, March 24, 2024 at 7:26:26 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

You've never provided any evidence. Stop throwing hotdogs in the rink!

Larry, you dim bulb, my evidence is the millions of experiments and observations over the last 120 years that have never failed to support relativity. You haven't got snowball's chance in hell of overturning relativity! Zero. Give it up, you have lost before you have even started!

Here, prove just one of these to be incorrect...

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

You are dead in the water...

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You totally misconceive the whole discussion. I don't need to change the status quo. I just need to find out the truth. It's impossible to change the status quo. My conjecture (as all good science) has no use for relativity which is a pseudoscience. Again, you haven't heard me say these experiments have proved nothing other than that people have interpreted them as if they support relativity. A interpretation is not an empirical result. It's a stupid take.

[Paul Alsing]

Larry, it is apparent that you are quite proud of your ignorance of the subject matter.  You are just clueless...

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul, I check into these blogs and no one has any intelligent defense of relativity, least of all you. I have lots of excellent books and articles I am reading and really don't have any more time.

[Paul Alsing]

Again, I do not need to show any defense of relativity since there is more than a century of evidence to support this position. You need to read a dang textbook, something that you have not yet done!

You remain completely ignorant of the subject matter. Unless you fully understand the current mainstream theory you have no credibility in condemning it.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You do not ever present any evidence or reasoning because you can not. Do you know the text books sometimes accept as facts highly speculative explanations? For example, they teach that the Last Glacial Maximum glaciers in Canada were three miles high. Think about it. How can there be any geological evidence for this? The glacier in the middle of Canada has no three mile high mountain to leave a scar on. The idea of this height was thought of by climate modelers who need it to explain the floral and faunal evidence for more equable climate then than now. This is speculation taught as facts. Relativity is ridiculous speculations taught as facts.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You and your shibboleths!

On Sunday, March 24, 2024 at 9:01:42 PM UTC-7 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 9:37:46 AM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

You and your shibboleths!

Even though the theory of relativity is about 120 years old, it has never been proven wrong. It remains quite important within the scientific community. Relativity allows your computer to work, and it certainly will not be you who takes it down. You have never even read a textbook about it! 

Start here...

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (caltech.edu)

... but you will soon be completely lost because you have zero physics foundation to fall back on. You are obviously the type of person who rejects any science that he does not understand, and you do NOT understand relativity, and that is a fact!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul, as always, I find your comments utterly valueless (that is why I almost never read them) and I am busy reading valuable professional criticisms of established science. For example, there have been many criticisms of Bergmann's rule sufficient to show that it does not prove the cold adaptation of the megafauna. Bye Paul, really, good bye!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Disalle states that Einstein’s definition of simultaneity is circular, since it already implies a principle of time measurement.

i.e. built on circular logic - which is the logical fallacy of petitio principii - therefore wrong by Logic

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/8bdea046-77dc-475f-82e4-e14bb14cc3fcn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>my evidence is the millions of experiments and observations over the last 120 years<<

misinterpreted evidence

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/1bb860fd-7148-417b-ab1e-fa2934318a44n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Relativity is ridiculous speculations taught as facts.<<

Yes most of the time. And "they" don't even have to be consistent with their speculations - Feynman says there is relativistic mass, Don Lincoln says there isn't.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/c1f815d4-d505-438f-83d0-abb66c8b5f59n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Roger, I discovered I had to approve your messages to get them posted but I didn't have to for Paul.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Relativists (especially Paul) aren't much for logic. Paul is all about ad verecundium as in this comment about credibility. I'm not seeking to be regarded as credible by relativists! Einstein was guilty of petitio principii many times. The relativists here at Google Groups will even defend logical fallacies as fallacies!

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 3:34:49 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul can't explain why their interpretation is better. He can only say go to the relativist authorities. Ad verecundium.

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 3:34:49 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I do not believe that mass varies with velocity. That is an unwarranted inference. Why would electromagnetic phenomena be able to accelerate particles over the speed of c? Where does Don Lincoln say this?

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 3:59:51 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

I do not believe that mass varies with velocity. That is an unwarranted inference.

Of course you don't. Since you do not understand the physics you feel that it must therefore be incorrect!

Why would electromagnetic phenomena be able to accelerate particles over the speed of c?

It can't. The Lorentz Transformation forbids it. Would you think otherwise?

Read the dang textbook, your ignorance of the subject matter is huge! 

 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

weird

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/28a888a1-cef3-4a87-a155-dfe89b1ebb8cn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

yes which is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/da1624c2-6a28-4f79-bd62-d99cda17d61en%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I do Anti-relativity talks every other Saturday at -> https://www.youtube.com/@JohnChappell/streams

relativistic mass talk at -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLdM22M6ZTQ&t=107s

Don Lincoln on relativistic mass at -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM

Don Lincoln is a relativist, but often contradicts what other relativists say

My main argument against relativity is ->

given people X and Y who both believe in relativity

X will often contradict what Y says

Therefore relativity is contradictory and must be false.

i.e. relativity needs revising etc.

Next session is -> Minkowski spacetime leads to contradictions.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/45e1cf17-30f8-4593-8566-04433a4a50f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Einstein was guilty of petitio principii many times. <<

yes

>>The relativists here at Google Groups will even defend logical fallacies as fallacies!<<

how?

you mean - "they" accept thinking processes using logical fallacies as valid and don't think of them as fallacies?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 25 Mar, 24 At 22:55
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

Relativists (especially Paul) aren't much for logic. Paul is all about ad verecundium as in this comment about credibility. I'm not seeking to be regarded as credible by relativists! Einstein was guilty of petitio principii many times. The relativists here at Google Groups will even defend logical fallacies as fallacies!

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 3:34:49 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

Disalle states that Einstein’s definition of simultaneity is circular, since it already implies a principle of time measurement.

i.e. built on circular logic - which is the logical fallacy of petitio principii - therefore wrong by Logic

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/426aa2bc-37f3-4b4b-ade3-81fd3486e96cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It's cleared up in the settings now.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thanks for the links.

I have owned a book of yours for a while. I have so many books and articles. Please understand I'm doing multidisciplinary research for a conjecture so I'm spread thin. I had Callahan's book for years and just read it with great profit, even if he may not have proven the fifth postulate. Antonio Leon has a newer approach to proving it in his book (free at Academia.edu).

Relativity is thoroughly self-contradictory and needs ditching. What to salvage?

Some have defended appeal to authority perhaps to be outrageous. That would be just doubling down.

The relativists at the defunct https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity mainly used deplatforming tactics like the Heckling of Paul Alsing "The Heckler." That won't work here.

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 7:02:03 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote: 

> ... Antonio Leon has a newer approach to proving it in his book (free at Academia.edu)...

You mean this guy?

"

Antonio Leon

Geologist. MS crystallography and mineralogy (University of Granada, Spain). Regular studies in mathematics & computer sciences UNED (Madrid). Doctoral program in logic and philosophy of science UNED (Madrid).

Philosophy! Doesn't look much like a relativity expert to me! Also, remember that there is no such thing as a proof in physics, and every time you claim that one of your fellow cranks has provided a proof it just reinforces your crankery.

> Relativity is thoroughly self-contradictory and needs ditching. What to salvage?

And yet no one has shown it to be wrong for about 120 years! NO ONE!

> The relativists at the defunct https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity mainly used deplatforming tactics like the Heckling of Paul Alsing "The Heckler." That won't work here.

Sci.physics.relativity is not defunct at all, it is just not available via Google Groups anymore. Get an actual newsreader!

Paul the Heckler will always call out cranks who spew bullshit without offering a trace of evidence in support of their very wobbly claims.

Evidence rules, but you don't actually have any, and you never will!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

What do you consider "evidence" Paul?

If read the relativity literature then raises question why do "they" do what "they" do.

Special relativity is supposed to be some sort of constant lightspeed and to do that space and time is changed; raises question why do that and why not instead just keep things as they are. Constant lightspeed because space and time relative -> space and time relative because lightspeed constant. - That is just fallacy of circular thinking.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 Mar, 24 At 01:54
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 3:34:49 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>my evidence is the millions of experiments and observations over the last 120 years<<

misinterpreted evidence

Evidence for this claim? Got any?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/920b5d86-5165-4333-ac79-d829bca0b37fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 2:28:46 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

What do you consider "evidence" Paul?

Evidence in science, in general, is the combination of observations and/or experiments that anyone can make, assuming that they have the proper equipment. Scientists perform these observations and/or experiments and publish papers for peer review. You can bet the bank that when this happens there are dozens of other scientists who rush to attempt to duplicate these observations and/or experiments to either confirm or counter the claims made in the publication. Read this for more insight...

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Note this quote from Popper, which is *very* important... "In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory that may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inc In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory that may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory." 

When anyone, be they scientists or non-scientists, make claims that so-and-so has proven Einstein to be incorrect, the burden of proof is upon them to support their claim with evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments that anyone can repeat for themselves and come to the same conclusion. This has never been done for relativity in about 120 years but it is not for lack of trying. 

Just because you or I do not understand a theory does not make it incorrect, and if you or I do not fully understand what a theory is saying then you have no valid reason for making unsubstantiated claims that it is false... unless, of course, you have evidence to provide.

As always, evidence rules... got any?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Just because you or I do not understand a theory does not make it incorrect, and if you or I do not fully understand what a theory is saying then you have no valid reason for making unsubstantiated claims that it is false... unless, of course, you have evidence to provide.<< -- What do you mean by "valid reason"; is a theory not making sense and/or violating logic a "valid reason"?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/1445ea70-4bf5-41bf-8b43-ddcc4d8f4cb7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul doesn't understand that the relativists interpretations are incorrect. He doesn't engage in disputing interpretations. Besides, he denies that illogical theories do not make predictions.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

So, basically told to believe it by some supposed authority and then he believes it?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/fc8385a7-a5e0-45b6-9269-3957565b1dd8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Leon is doing math and you are doing ad hominem instead of addressing his case.

Since there is no proof in physics relativity hasn't been proven and need not be disproved.

Many people have shown virtually everything about relativity to be wrong but you refuse to read them because they are not certified by our insane "higher education" system and corrupt peer review process conducted in dark back rooms.

[Paul Alsing]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 4:49:57 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Since there is no proof in physics relativity hasn't been proven and need not be disproved.

This is exactly what I have been saying, but you are not being at all logical! No theory in physics can be proven, but this in no way means that it need not be disproved! What an ignorant claim you are making. If you think that relativity is incorrect all you need to do is present evidence to support your claim, just like any other scientist in the world. What are you thinking? YOU don't find it logical and therefore YOU think that it must be wrong! Psssst... it is not wrong, and there are hundreds of experiments that support it, and none that have overturned it... yet!

 

Many people have shown virtually everything about relativity to be wrong but you refuse to read them because they are not certified by our insane "higher education" system and corrupt peer review process conducted in dark back rooms.

No, those are false claims, born of ignorance of the subject matter. If anyone proves that any facet of relativity is wrong they would receive a Nobel Prize, and that's a fact! 120 years and it has not been done yet... especially by a philosopher!  Without applying relativistic principles in space travel, a Martian lander could not only have landed within just a few feet of its target, it would have missed the planet entirely! Relativity is extremely important when navigating in space. Without applying relativistic principles your GPS would be off by miles. Without applying relativistic principles, your computer would not work. Here are examples of relativity as applied in everyday life here on Earth...

8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life (yahoo.com)

Larry, you don't know what you don't know, and that is another true fact. I looked up the Dunning-Kruger effect...

The Dunning-Kruger Effect: An Overestimation of Capability (verywellmind.com)

... and I swear I saw your picture there! 

You remain clueless. You distrust science because you don't get it. You have no business critisizing relativity because you do not understand what it is saying... but the good thing about science is that it does not care what you think...

Science communicators need to stop telling everybody the universe is a meaningless void (theconversation.com)

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You're a simple minded starry eyed believer with no understanding and lacking logic.

[Paul Alsing]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

You're a simple minded starry eyed believer with no understanding and lacking logic.

Nice response, Larry, you must have thought long and hard about it... but not at all scientific!

I'm pretty sure I'm not the guy here who lacks logic! Read a dang textbook...

[ROGER ANDERTON]

The general method of relativity believers is:

Person X says such and such and person Y contradicts by saying something else

Therefore relativity does not make sense.

------ Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
To: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 28 Mar, 24 At 08:58
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

The onus is on you to explain how it makes sense.

Let's start with relativistic mass - some texts say it exists and others say it doesn't; how is that possible?

But as you say "I am in no way any kind of expert regarding relativity." - so don't know what you are talking about and thus want to blow smoke.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 Mar, 24 At 01:10
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 5:32:57 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>Just because you or I do not understand a theory does not make it incorrect, and if you or I do not fully understand what a theory is saying then you have no valid reason for making unsubstantiated claims that it is false... unless, of course, you have evidence to provide.

<< -- What do you mean by "valid reason"; is a theory not making sense and/or violating logic a "valid reason"?

A poor choice of words on my part. I mean that if you know very little about brain surgery you have no basis in fact to tell an actual brain surgeon that he is doing it wrong. This is pretty much what happens every day on these forums, people with an "interest" in relativity but have never cracked a textbook, find themselves reading about relativity and learning that it makes no sense to them and thinking that is certainly must be wrong! Relativity is not that hard to understand, provided that you have a strong foundation in physics and math. I have degrees in physics, math, and astronomy (from 1969) but I am in no way any kind of expert regarding relativity... but I know enough to know when someone else is trying to blow smoke up my ass and cannot provide any evidence for their claims.

In my opinion, if someone is writing articles about how some facet of relativity is incorrect, but their narrative does not include evidence consisting of those very important observations and/or experiments, with *very* specific data details, then they are just blowing smoke and will end up being targeted as just another wannabe relativity crank with nothing to offer. Ideas and "logic" are all well and good but without evidence, they are worthless.

If you think that relativity does not make sense then I would claim that you don't know much about relativity.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, 26 Mar, 24 At 20:15
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 2:28:46 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

What do you consider "evidence" Paul?

Evidence in science, in general, is the combination of observations and/or experiments that anyone can make, assuming that they have the proper equipment. Scientists perform these observations and/or experiments and publish papers for peer review. You can bet the bank that when this happens there are dozens of other scientists who rush to attempt to duplicate these observations and/or experiments to either confirm or counter the claims made in the publication. Read this for more insight...

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Note this quote from Popper, which is *very* important... "In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory that may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inc In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory that may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory."

When anyone, be they scientists or non-scientists, make claims that so-and-so has proven Einstein to be incorrect, the burden of proof is upon them to support their claim with evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments that anyone can repeat for themselves and come to the same conclusion. This has never been done for relativity in about 120 years but it is not for lack of trying.

Just because you or I do not understand a theory does not make it incorrect, and if you or I do not fully understand what a theory is saying then you have no valid reason for making unsubstantiated claims that it is false... unless, of course, you have evidence to provide.

As always, evidence rules... got any?

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/1445ea70-4bf5-41bf-8b43-ddcc4d8f4cb7n%40googlegroups.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/65cc8e66-953b-4173-a23f-c4301ac5f0d4n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>If anyone proves that any facet of relativity is wrong they would receive a Nobel Prize, and that's a fact! <<

I would have thought this counted ->

Scientists Win Physics Nobel Prize For Proving Einstein Wrong https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-win-physics-nobel-prize-for-proving-einstein-wrong

Einstein wrong about quantum physics based on his beliefs from relativity etc

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/a4ae2b25-f555-4b28-bf71-2aeb44564414n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Arafat and Obama got Nobels for no good reason. How foolish can one be to put blind faith in this sort of recognition?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Despite physics supposedly not being based on voting.

Nobel prize in physics being awarded for Einstein being wrong means some physicists/scientists voted and are of opinion Einstein wrong.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, 28 Mar, 24 At 13:54
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

Arafat and Obama got Nobles for no good reason. How foolish can one be to put blind faith in this sort of recognition?

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/ee41436e-aa70-4016-a3c5-fcef9367dfa3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, as you know there is more and more differences of opinion between relativists and quantum theory. Quantum theorists prefer absolute time.

[John-Erik Persson]

Paul

Without applying relativistic principles your GPS would be off by miles.

This is wrong. We can get the same prediction from the ether wind effect in clocks, since bound electrons move 2-way in relation to the ether and this causes a second order effect on clock speed. This is half the effect in MMX. So, we have a simple classical effect instead of absurd time dilation.

From _________ John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/6123d58f.8c65.18e875ea8e6.Webtop.88%40btinternet.com.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 7:23:29 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, as you know there is more and more differences of opinion between relativists and quantum theory. Quantum theorists prefer absolute time.

There is no place in science for freaking opinions! What are you thinking? EVIDENCE is all that counts. Period. End of story.

By the way, there is no such word as " relativists" regarding physics. This is just a word made up by ignoramuses. Relativism has to do with philosophy, which is more up your alley.

Relativism - Wikipedia

As always, you remain clueless.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-7 john.eri...@gmail.com wrote:

Paul

Without applying relativistic principles your GPS would be off by miles.

 

This is wrong. We can get the same prediction from the ether wind effect in clocks, since bound electrons move 2-way in relation to the ether and this causes a second order effect on clock speed. This is half the effect in MMX. So, we have a simple classical effect instead of absurd time dilation.

From _________ John-Erik

No, this is not wrong . What are you smoking?

Relativity in the Global Positioning System - PMC (nih.gov)

"The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work."

Yet another relativity crank spreading his wings and getting shot down with ease! You guys make easy targets!

Evidence rules, got any?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Having long experience of Paul for over a year at Google relativity forums I know him to be essentially a heckler who won't listen with any comprehension and basically replies with appeal to authority. I don't have time to read his stuff but he's the only relativist who has written here so far. Only a few of those who contributed to the defunct group are continuing at NOVABBS. https://www.novabbs.com/tech/thread.php?group=sci.physics.relativity

I apologize that your comment wasn't visible sooner but I do not know why that happened. I had to approve it but I have the settings so everyone can comment. Hopefully it will work automatically now.

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-7 john.eri...@gmail.com wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 8:05:49 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Having long experience of Paul for over a year at Google relativity forums I know him to be essentially a heckler who won't listen with any comprehension and basically replies with appeal to authority. I don't have time to read his stuff but he's the only relativist who has written here so far. Only a few of those who contributed to the defunct group are continuing at NOVABBS. https://www.novabbs.com/tech/thread.php?group=sci.physics.relativity

I have long experience with Larry for over a year at Google Groups Sci.Physics.Relativity Forum and I know him to be almost completely uneducated in all things regarding physics. He believes that if it does not make any sense to him then it must be incorrect. There is no such word as "relativist" as it applies to physics, but rather it is a word that only applies to philosophy. The usegroup sci.physics.relativity is not at all defunct except on Google Groups as it is a perfectly valid newsgroup available elsewhere. Larry does not know what he does not know and makes a fool of himself every time he posts here. Larry does not understand that science is driven by evidence, and evidence alone, and does not care if he denies anything that science has to say that he does not understand. Larry may be a very intelligent person but without any background in physics he is nothing but cannon fodder since he thinks that HIS interpretation of physics is all that matters! Interpretation is far from actual understanding, and understanding takes a $hit-ton of study, which Larry lacks. There is no substitution for education. you cannot possibly challenge a scientific theory if you do not understand the theory to begin with! Just not possible.

Larry, I have about 6000 hours of study in physics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and as far as I can tell you have zero. If I reference mainstream physics as being the best authority, who the hell are you to dispute it? Just who do you think you are?

Once again, Larry, you clearly do not know what you do not know.

Read a dang textbook... like this one...

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (caltech.edu)

... if you think you can handle it!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>By the way, there is no such word as " relativists" regarding physics.<<

Who is this person called "physics" (?)

Physics has the relativity theory.

Thus as believers in relativity are called "relativists".

Then by dictionary Collins https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/relativist ->

A relativist position or argument is one according to which the truth is not always the same, but varies according to circumstances.

That's what most people think "relativists" are.

And as per my example:

If person X and y believe in relativity.

Then what X says might contradict what Y says but they still believe in relativity despite not agreeing.

e.g. X might say there is relativistic mass and Y say there isn't.

What X and Y believe is different but - "truth is not always the same" for them - hence they are relativists.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/e1d9245e-d953-4c70-851f-206bc7f65987n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>you cannot possibly challenge a scientific theory if you do not understand the theory to begin with!<<

What is taught is - that nobody understands it.

Therefore since nobody understands it-> nobody can know if it is right . etc.

claims like it agrees with experiment are therefore false -> because nobody understands it enough to know that.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/df933f86-e4fa-4545-a247-3d442f62594en%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

New South Wales teaches:

QUOTE: At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it".

So being asked to believe relativity on FAITH and give up trying to understand.

New South Wales continues:

QUOTE: Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision.

BUT if don't understand relativity - how can anyone understand whether experiments agree with it or not (?) - Answer can't- all built on FAITH alone.

------ Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Emperor's new clothes - can only see the clothes based on FAITH alone, otherwise the Emperor appears naked.

------ Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
To: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>; "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 11:58
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Blind faith.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul pretends the experiments can be construed to provide evidence. He pretends to see the clothes. So many critics have pointed out the emperor Einstein has no clothes. E.g. Robert L. Henderson's book, Einstein and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome: The Expose of a Charlatan. Einstein was a charlatan.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 4:58:25 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

New South Wales teaches:

QUOTE: At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it".

So being asked to believe relativity on FAITH and give up trying to understand.

New South Wales continues:

QUOTE: Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision.

BUT if don't understand relativity - how can anyone understand whether experiments agree with it or not (?) - Answer can't- all built on FAITH alone.

The answer, of course, is that tens of thousands of people DO understand relativity, and DO understand that experiments agree with it... and everyone else can either believe it on faith or they can just make crap up as they go along and disparage the parts they don't understand. People like Larry, for example, who is psychologically terrified that there could possibly something like relativity that he simply cannot fathom, and his rejection of it is somehow comforting to him. I'm pretty sure that if he put in the hours of study that those tens of thousands of scientists did that someday he, too might understand. Relativity is not easy and there is no substitute for hard work.

I know much about relativity, as much as any other undergrad would know, but I also know exactly what I don't know... and I cannot reject any theory that I myself do not understand, and there are lots of those! Mainstream physics is almost certainly not 100% correct, and that is why technology and a better understanding of the universe around us are always being tweaked and refined. The Webb telescope has kick-started lots of theory-tweaking because we are seeing things that were never even considered to be true, so it is back to the drawing board to make the theory fit the facts. It has always been this way and shall always be this way going forward.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>If anyone proves that any facet of relativity is wrong they would receive a Nobel Prize, and that's a fact! <<

I would have thought this counted ->

Scientists Win Physics Nobel Prize For Proving Einstein Wrong https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-win-physics-nobel-prize-for-proving-einstein-wrong

Einstein wrong about quantum physics based on his beliefs from relativity etc

Sure, that counts... but not for the reason that you think. The Nobel was awarded for a very tiny slice of the theory of relativity, that being "entangled photons", within the very bizarre world of quantum mechanics. From that article...

"Even the great Albert Einstein himself was unsettled by this – to the point where he was convinced that it was wrong. Rather than outcomes being random, he thought there must be some "hidden variables" – forces or laws that we can't see – which predictably influence the results of our measurements."

However, he was wrong about that.

So, you see, even though Einstein predicted quantum entanglement, he thought that it must surely be wrong and gave up on it... but in the end, he was right all along! So yes, these 3 guys who got the Nobel did show that Einstein was wrong... for giving up on something about which he was eventually correct.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Einstein was a charlatan.<<

Einstein did admit though that he did not understand relativity, so he couldn't see the clothes.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/64484050-d8dc-438e-a09b-f526a1213cf8n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>The answer, of course, is that tens of thousands of people DO understand relativity, and DO understand that experiments agree with it..<<

That was not what was being taught at New South Wales. And is as far as I am aware everyone is taught to believe on FAITH and are told the mantra - "shut up and calculate".

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2996797b-db2c-4475-995e-4adf5702c34fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You give him too much credit. He was one of only twelve (apostles) who could understand it.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>I'm pretty sure that if he put in the hours of study that those tens of thousands of scientists did that someday he, too might understand. <<

anyone who does that is just brainwashing themselves -> its the type of thing done in any religious cult to get novices to believe things that are nonsense

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 19:28
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2996797b-db2c-4475-995e-4adf5702c34fn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>I also know exactly what I don't know... and I cannot reject any theory that I myself do not understand, and there are lots of those!<<

so you are believing lots of things based solely on FAITH - what are those things?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 19:28
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2996797b-db2c-4475-995e-4adf5702c34fn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>The Webb telescope has kick-started lots of theory-tweaking because we are seeing things that were never even considered to be true, so it is back to the drawing board to make the theory fit the facts.<<

so, what "theory" is that; are you still going to call it Einstein's theory of relativity even though its been changed to fit the facts?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 19:28
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2996797b-db2c-4475-995e-4adf5702c34fn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>The Nobel was awarded for a very tiny slice of the theory of relativity<<

but is it a big enough "slice" to say the theory of relativity is wrong?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/11dc1276-dc8a-410e-9c47-472a9a8506c3n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Who were those 12?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 23:26
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/48e68aa8-cd7d-47db-a1b8-b515eb9cfa3bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It was stated in the 1920s or 30s that there were twelve but they were never enumerated.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

ok just more unsubstantiated claims from relativity believers

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/c4736876-2b1b-452d-bcd6-7d0e2464e2b6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Found it: T. J. J. See wrote in The San Francisco Journal, on 13 May 1923, in an article
entitled, “Einstein a Second Dr. Cook?”: THE Magazine and newspaper press for the last eight years has been so filled with systematic propaganda, undoubtedly organized and directed by Einstein and his agents, that the public has become familiar with the name of Einstein and with the phrase ‘Theory of Relativity’. Not
one lay person in a thousand has any idea what this all means; and as the people do
not understand it, the phrases are passed on in joke, or assumed to represent
something important in the higher lines of physical science. It is well known that
about six years ago Einstein tried to cast a halo of glory about his head by allowing
the report to go forth that not over twelve mathematicians in the world could
understand his benighted theory of relativity. Of course this is preposterous, and
nobody knows it better than Einstein himself. [***] In short, I have at length become
convinced that Einstein is a faker, with considerable skill in deceiving the the press
and public, so as to ding-dong into the unthinking the idea that he is a great
mathematician and philosopher, who is improving on Newton. Let us first notice the
errors of Einstein, and the cunning way in which he gets away from them, owing to
the layman’s inability to pin him down.” From: “THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SAINT EINSTEIN”

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Maybe Mr. See turned the three people into twelve?

On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 1:19:40 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I am aware of the three.

1st - Einstein

2nd - Eddington who supposed confirmed relativity in 1919

more arguable as to the 3rd

but seems to be Silberstein who was first promoting relativity

then changed mind and said it was wrong.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/4e37f5c4-423b-4149-9acb-9e8f5a40606an%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

as to the other thing -

>>In short, I have at length become
convinced that Einstein is a faker, with considerable skill in deceiving the the press
and public,<<

It was part of a big publicity campaign funded by Rothschilds (supposedly richest family in the world) tied into collecting money for zionism- Einstein being figurehead for zionism and his public appearances tied to fund-raising for zionism

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/c12b5623-ceaa-4162-b4a6-852cfc106357n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, they were doing it for Zionism and a fortune was spent promoting Einstein. It was not really physics.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It is supposed to be when politics was mixed in with physics.

Einstein was very deeply involved as a political activist.

Being promoted as a genius gave him a big political platform for what he was saying about politics to be taken more seriously.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/a2b4e626-caec-4656-acfc-f0915a647ad4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

That was their primary motive and it explains why the science was so bad. The historiographical account is that Einstein followed in Galileo's and Eotvos footsteps since they showed everything is affected the same by gravity no matter their mass or material. Then Einstein said light is affected twice as much by gravity as everything else. So, he flagrantly contradicted Galileo and Eotvos. This is the opposite of what everyone has been led to believe.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Einstein said light is affected twice as much by gravity as everything else<<

that sort of thing is said, but its false like a lot of things said in relativity are false.

Light bent same amount in Newton theory as in Einstein theory.

What "they" do is a calculation for an object falling like this ->

And so have a collection of apples all falling along parallel paths with each other; and they call this the gravitational force.

But the Earth like the Sun -

is a sphere and so apples don't fall parallel; instead they converge to the point that is the centre of the sphere; that is an extra force at work called tidal force.

So, objects fall with gravitational force; but as objects fall they get closer together by the tidal force.

If include tidal force then force is doubled from what have if just deal with gravitational force.

light is affected twice as much by gravity+ tidal force than if just deal with gravity.

So, obeys Newtonian gravity+tidal force .

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/0b9463d3-6b81-4e5a-ac88-86a4104f74e1n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Calvin explains how science is based on FAITH

If go back to Pythagoras - math was a religion.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I do not believe you are correct.

Tidal force is gravitational so your reasoning is redundant.

You are saying the deflection of starlight by the Sun during eclipses is Newtonian.

Then Newtonian gravity would have been proved by the Eddington experiment.

It was already understood that light would probably be affected by gravity like everything else.

Newton mentioned this in his Optics.

John Mitchell already thought of the idea of black holes.

Soldner and Cavendish already predicted it.

Other attempts had been made to measure it.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

In other words, anything of the sort would have already been predicted by Newtonian physics before Eddington's experiment.

On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Yes,

various people thought light would be affected by gravity

e.g. 18th century

wiki -> Michell was the first to propose the existence of celestial bodies similar to black holes.^[15] Having accepted Newton's corpuscular theory of light, which posited that light consists of minuscule particles, he reasoned that such particles, when emanated by a star, would be slowed down by its gravitational pull, and that it might therefore be possible to determine the star's mass based on the reduction in speed. This insight led in turn to the recognition that a star's gravitational pull might be so strong that the escape velocity would exceed the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

Einstein gets credited with lots of things even though others said it before him; it is supposedly the difference between them and him-> that he is saying it in the context of his theory, which these others didn't have

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 21:12
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

In other words, anything of the sort would have already been predicted by Newtonian physics before Eddington's experiment.

On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>Einstein said light is affected twice as much by gravity as everything else<<

that sort of thing is said, but its false like a lot of things said in relativity are false.

Light bent same amount in Newton theory as in Einstein theory.

What "they" do is a calculation for an object falling like this ->

And so have a collection of apples all falling along parallel paths with each other; and they call this the gravitational force.

But the Earth like the Sun -

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/192b4370-5989-4744-8446-1187c0d0cfafn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I don't think the "deflection" was caused by gravity. I think it is refraction.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Tidal force is gravitational<<

that is correct in the sense gravity can cause tidal force.

But where that "they" do it is->

Newtonian gravitational theory (which is ignoring tidal force part)

Newtonian tidal gravity theory (that includes the tidal force part)

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 20:04
Subject: Re: Wonderful Idea!

I do not believe you are correct.

Tidal force is gravitational so your reasoning is redundant.

You are saying the deflection of starlight by the Sun during eclipses is Newtonian.

Then Newtonian gravity would have been proved by the Eddington experiment.

It was already understood that light would probably be affected by gravity like everything else.

Newton mentioned this in his Optics.

John Mitchell already thought of the idea of black holes.

Soldner and Cavendish already predicted it.

Other attempts had been made to measure it.

On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 11:52:59 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>Einstein said light is affected twice as much by gravity as everything else<<

that sort of thing is said, but its false like a lot of things said in relativity are false.

Light bent same amount in Newton theory as in Einstein theory.

What "they" do is a calculation for an object falling like this ->

And so have a collection of apples all falling along parallel paths with each other; and they call this the gravitational force.

But the Earth like the Sun -

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/5ed8f7c3-4de6-4d61-a96b-c61a2a7945e5n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

That idea was considered in Einstein's time and rejected.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/0d7c565d-7971-4c07-8ab2-9274cd985cb0n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

relevant paper 1919 concluded ->

"It seems clear that the effect here found must be attributed to the sun’s gravitational field and not, for example, to refraction by coronal matter."https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsta.1920.0009

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on: and the tidal part is interpreted as the space-time curvature part

while gravity (without the tidal part) is no space-time curvature

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/859e0b4.a23e.18e91886a9c.Webtop.88%40btinternet.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Example of how someone can become a superstar in news media

Einstein was promoted by backers to be a superstar in news media

Same sort of thing carries on today

Greta Thunberg was promoted by backers as climate activist by her backers ->

https://www.rebelnews.com/exclusive-documentary-expose-greta-thunberg-greta-inc

[ROGER ANDERTON]

says ->

How does a 16-year-old girl bewitch the world?

The answer: she doesn’t — at least not alone.

Greta Thunberg’s meteoric rise to fame over the course of several months did not happen by accident.

Her canonization as a global climate saint was coordinated and executed by a cabal of left-wing eco-elites — including her parents and their famous friends.

same thing with canonization of Einstein - he had his backers

its all just PR campaigns set-up by various political groups -> really just fake news

and people/consumers buy/believe the fake news

------ Original Message ------
From: "'ROGER ANDERTON' via Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>; "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/4f177863.a261.18e91ccd77d.Webtop.88%40btinternet.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

explained in wiki at - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

Introduction to general relativity

does section

From special to general relativity

followed by section

Equivalence principle

says - A person in a free-falling elevator experiences weightlessness; objects either float motionless or drift at constant speed. Since everything in the elevator is falling together, no gravitational effect can be observed. In this way, the experiences of an observer in free fall are indistinguishable from those of an observer in deep space, far from any significant source of gravity. Such observers are the privileged ("inertial") observers Einstein described in his theory of special relativity: observers for whom light travels along straight lines at constant speed.[

etc

no mention of any tidal force

next section -

Gravity and acceleration

says - Most effects of gravity vanish in free fall, but effects that seem the same as those of gravity can be produced by an accelerated frame of reference. An observer in a closed room cannot tell which of the following two scenarios is true:

etc

still no mention of tidal force

eventually gets to section -

Tidal effects

where it does consider tidal force

The sections before this section were thus dealing with gravity and not including tidal force.

So have it split into-

gravity theory without tidal force - in the sections before "Tidal effects" section

and then thereafter

gravity theory with tidal force

[ROGER ANDERTON]

latest video -In defence of relativity deniers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WeizcvQOoQ

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I'm sure they must have had the tidal force part before Eddington.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes and it continues to be considered as e.g. by Edward Dowdye and myself.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thanks, I'll check the link. Usually it is said that the corona is not dense enough and the counter-argument is that the effect is not actually found far out.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I know. I've had occasion to study climate science as one part of my cosmological conjecture. I prefer the skeptics. Bjorn Lomborg is very good as is Tony Heller (YouTube videos). Arrhenius was refuted early in the twentieth century by Wood and Angstrom.
There is an excellent correlation between atmospheric pressure and temperature but little with CO2.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I know. The IPCC is really a political group led by ideologues.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The equivalence principle is nonsense. A similarity is not an equivalence and it does not explain causation.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thanks.