EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

[Pentcho Valev]

The main poison killing physics is Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its logical child - the idiotic relative time (or spacetime):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

All sane Einsteinians have already left or are going to leave Einsteiniana's sinking ship:

http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/andiam-andiam.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.07.2015 00:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> The main poison killing physics is Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its logical child - the idiotic relative time (or spacetime):
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/
> Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."
>

The question is not, what you regard as plausible, but how nature behaves.

Physics is a science about the principles of nature, that are acting
behind the observed world.

You may like them or not: this is irrelevant.

The fundamental principles could only be understood as they are and not
as someone likes them to be.

So the question is, if SRT describes a natural phenomenon correctly (or
not).

I would say: yes, time is a LOCAL measure - and is the time of a local
observer.

Since anybody is an observer and always somewhere, anybody has his own
specific measure of time. Along the surface of the Earth we have all the
same time, but about clocks in Alpha Centaury we don't know very much.

But SRT is nevertheless wrong, because SRT uses velocity as means to
influence time and not acceleration. This is - in my opinion - wrong
and is not only illogic, but also not supported by experiment.


TH

[kefischer]

:-) There is no acceleration involved in
the motion of anything in vacuum (and the
absence of a magnetic field or radiation
pressure).

So, even orbits and freefall is "velocity-
only"!

And time is just how many times some
natural process happens during the motion.

Going faster changes time flow from a
linear rate, because the "trip" is shorter
than Newtonian mechanics predicts.


Get used to it. :-)

[Pentcho Valev]

The aftermath of the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate (dead science, irreversibly deranged minds):

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/feature/crazy-drama-physics
"The Crazy Drama of Physics (...) Now when a new scientific development comes along, it's as though terms like "light" and "speed" and "time" are characters in a long-running foreign soap opera. They all have complicated backstories, and the multiple costume changes don't help. At first, "time" was just a simple campesino, but then - twist! - it's revealed that "time" and "space," who we thought was a swashbuckling bandito, are the same person, except then - twist! - it turns out that maybe they're twins, and because one of them was in a spaceship for a while during the third season, now the one that stayed behind and inherited the contessa's fortune is older than he is. (...) If you've managed to wrap your mind around that - the idea that the past, present, and future all exist at once and are therefore immutable and hence there are no surprises and also, by the way, logically no free will - welcome to the current episode, in which we posit that - twist! - time does exist. Lee Smolin's 'Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe' claims that now is real, the future hasn't happened yet, and there are genuinely new things under the sun. The contessa and her daughter weren't blackmailing the duke at all, or at least, not with the secret we thought he had. The duke's mad wife was the sane one the whole time."

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was
"Is the Future Already Written? A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein's notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. George Ellis is not afraid to rock the establishment. In his youth in South Africa, his target was a recognizably corrupt and racist government. Now a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, Ellis has set his sights on something more abstract: the flow of time itself. First developed by Albert Einstein early in the 20th century, the orthodox view holds that the passage of time is an illusion. There is no difference between the past and the future - both are set in stone. Yet for Ellis, the philosophical implications of this mainstream theory do not simply run counter to our intuitions; he considers them dangerous... (...) Ellis' new model is a modification, rather than a radical upheaval, of the block universe. In his framework, set out in a series of highly regarded papers published from 2006 onward, Ellis retains four-dimensional space-time, in line with relativity's predictions. However, he argues that Einstein took that concept too far."

Pentcho Valev

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/6/15 7/6/15 - 9:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> But SRT is nevertheless wrong, because SRT uses velocity as means to influence
> time and not acceleration. This is - in my opinion - wrong and is not only
> illogic, but also not supported by experiment.

You are wrong at several levels:

* Theoretical: once one defines local inertial frames, then only
three transform groups among them are consistent with the
definition: the Euclid (4D) group, the Galilei group, and the
Poincare' group. The first is rejected by simple everyday
observations (time is different from space); the second is
rejected by many experiments; the third is SR, and is
consistent with all experiments within its domain. NONE of
them involve acceleration as a parameter.

* Experimental: SR is consistent with all experiments to date that
are within its domain, and is refuted by none. Your "not
supported by experiment" is just plain wrong -- SR is one of the
best-supported theories we have.

* Conceptual: the absence of measurable forces on objects in the
ISS pretty much compels one to consider freefall an absence of
acceleration (as in GR and contrary to Newtonian mechanics).
But there is measurable "time dilation" between clocks on
satellites (in freefall) and clocks on earth, which varies with
the speed and altitude of the satellite (relative to the ECI),
not with their acceleration (which is zero for all).

You are invited to try to construct a theory based upon acceleration. But from
the mathematical structure of inertial frames and transforms among them, it's
easy to predict you will fail.

Note that in SR, velocity does NOT "influence" time. In
every inertial frame, time progresses at its usual rate
(e.g. as measured by standard clocks). "Time dilation"
is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION and only describes how
relatively-moving observers measure each others' clocks;
the behavior of no clock or physical process is affected.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:v6KdnW6hl7xLcgbI...@giganews.com...

|* Experimental: SR is consistent with all experiments to date that
| are within its domain, and is refuted by none. Your "not

A lie, common between relativistic morons. Your tales about
observers didn't match reality even in Galileo's time, and
now they are not worthy even laugh.

[JanPB]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 3:57:56 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The main poison killing physics is Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its logical child - the idiotic relative time (or spacetime):

The main poison of this group is idiots like you.

--
Jan

[Rüdiger Nölke]

Speaking the witch, there must be "are", not "is".

[Pentcho Valev]

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez (2008): "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."

http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/economie-societe/recherche-innovation/recherche/221160264/physique-est-schizophrene
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."

Schizophrenic but... nutritious:

http://s8int.com/images9/eistein.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.07.2015 17:27, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> But SRT is nevertheless wrong, because SRT uses velocity as means to
>> influence
>> time and not acceleration. This is - in my opinion - wrong and is not
>> only
>> illogic, but also not supported by experiment.
>
> You are wrong at several levels:
>
> * Theoretical: once one defines local inertial frames, then only
> three transform groups among them are consistent with the
> definition: the Euclid (4D) group, the Galilei group, and the
> Poincare' group. The first is rejected by simple everyday
> observations (time is different from space); the second is
> rejected by many experiments; the third is SR, and is
> consistent with all experiments within its domain. NONE of
> them involve acceleration as a parameter.
>
> * Experimental: SR is consistent with all experiments to date that
> are within its domain, and is refuted by none. Your "not
> supported by experiment" is just plain wrong -- SR is one of the
> best-supported theories we have.

There was this experiment at the Harvard Towers. This shows an influence
of gravity. Then there was this experiment of Martin Grusenick, who
measured some vertical influence in a modified MMX experiment.

Also the so called twin paradox could be solved, if the effect of time
dilation isn't ascribed to velocity, but to the acceleration.

> * Conceptual: the absence of measurable forces on objects in the
> ISS pretty much compels one to consider freefall an absence of
> acceleration (as in GR and contrary to Newtonian mechanics).
> But there is measurable "time dilation" between clocks on
> satellites (in freefall) and clocks on earth, which varies with
> the speed and altitude of the satellite (relative to the ECI),
> not with their acceleration (which is zero for all).
>
> You are invited to try to construct a theory based upon acceleration.
> But from the mathematical structure of inertial frames and transforms
> among them, it's easy to predict you will fail.
>

Well, in fact I have something to present, that is based on GR and a
certain type of quaternions. The idea behind this concept is, to
generate something like particles out of spacetime (of GR).

To make this work, I need certain assumptions. One is time as local measure.

This is kind of 'subjectivism' and all objects are regarded as
'self-centred'. In their own FoR they measure time and about other
times, they don't know anything.

Other FoR behave similar, but are based on another time. This
'time-axis' is accompanied with a 'subjective universe', too.

This is, what SRT would not allow, since SRT uses velocity in respect to
some kind of universal FoR ('the universe').

And this is illogic, since it violates the own principles of relativity.

To solve this problem, I want to make the observer 'self-centred' and
use acceleration as means of transit to another FoR (with another
timeline and another universe).

My 'book' you can read here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6



TH

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Then there was this experiment of Martin Grusenick, who
> measured some vertical influence in a modified MMX experiment.

Wow!

> Also the so called twin paradox could be solved, if the effect of
> time dilation isn't ascribed to velocity, but to the acceleration.

Double wow!

> [...] SRT uses velocity in respect to

> some kind of universal FoR ('the universe').

Triple wow!

Then there's the giants in the desert, and the "growing earth"...


---Tim Shuba---

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/7/15 7/7/15 - 4:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.07.2015 17:27, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> But SRT is nevertheless wrong, because SRT uses velocity as means to
>>> influence
>>> time and not acceleration. This is - in my opinion - wrong and is not
>>> only
>>> illogic, but also not supported by experiment.
>>
>> You are wrong at several levels:
>>
>> * Theoretical: once one defines local inertial frames, then only
>> three transform groups among them are consistent with the
>> definition: the Euclid (4D) group, the Galilei group, and the
>> Poincare' group. The first is rejected by simple everyday
>> observations (time is different from space); the second is
>> rejected by many experiments; the third is SR, and is
>> consistent with all experiments within its domain. NONE of
>> them involve acceleration as a parameter.
>>
>> * Experimental: SR is consistent with all experiments to date that
>> are within its domain, and is refuted by none. Your "not
>> supported by experiment" is just plain wrong -- SR is one of the
>> best-supported theories we have.
>
> There was this experiment at the Harvard Towers. This shows an influence of
> gravity.

Yes. But not of ACCELERATION. All of our models of this involve the
gravitational POTENTIAL, not acceleration (which in NM is proportional to the
gradient of potential).

> Then there was this experiment of Martin Grusenick, who measured some
> vertical influence in a modified MMX experiment.

He measured the flexing of his apparatus as it rotated. Yes, this was due to
gravity; he did NOT measure any effect of gravity on the light rays themselves.

> Also the so called twin paradox could be solved, if the effect of time dilation
> isn't ascribed to velocity, but to the acceleration.

NONSENSE! The twin paradox is already "solved" using SR (in which acceleration
does not affect the elapsed proper time of any clock, except insofar as it
affects the trajectory of the clock).


> [...] since SRT uses velocity in respect to some

> kind of universal FoR ('the universe').

This is just plain wrong. You REALLY need to learn what SR actually is before
attempting to discuss it, or "supplant" it.,

> And this is illogic, since it violates the own principles of relativity.

The illogic is YOURS.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

If the speed of light is influenced by gravity and speed of light is
constant (in a free falling FoR), than time is influenced by gravity.

This has to be that way, since otherwise c could not be a constant.

If now an influence of gravity is measured, than we could assume, that
acceleration has an influence on time (and velocity has not).

That was my statement and the one you have rejected.

Now you don't like me to call gravity 'acceleration'. But as far as I
know gravity behaves exactly like an acceleration.

So we could take such effects as a hint for similar effects, that could
eventually be measured with accelerated devices.

>> Then there was this experiment of Martin Grusenick, who measured some
>> vertical influence in a modified MMX experiment.
>
> He measured the flexing of his apparatus as it rotated. Yes, this was
> due to gravity; he did NOT measure any effect of gravity on the light
> rays themselves.

Poor Mr. Grusenick, since nobody takes his experiment serious and
everybody claims, it was an effect of 'sacking'.

I personally don't believe in such an explanation, since it's an
explanation 'out of the blue'.

>
>> Also the so called twin paradox could be solved, if the effect of time
>> dilation
>> isn't ascribed to velocity, but to the acceleration.
>
> NONSENSE! The twin paradox is already "solved" using SR (in which
> acceleration does not affect the elapsed proper time of any clock,
> except insofar as it affects the trajectory of the clock).

Actually it's not 'solved', since otherwise it would not be called
'paradox'.

>
>> [...] since SRT uses velocity in respect to some
>> kind of universal FoR ('the universe').
>
> This is just plain wrong. You REALLY need to learn what SR actually is
> before attempting to discuss it, or "supplant" it.,
>

Ok, than you are certainly able to explain, in respect to what entity
the velocity v in SRT has to be measured.

>> And this is illogic, since it violates the own principles of relativity.
>
> The illogic is YOURS.
>

No, I use one of the principles of relativity and make the observer
'self-centred': He knows about his local time and about nothing else.

What he sees if looking into the sky (at night), that is called 'universe'.

This is certainly not the best way possible, but defines a valid FoR.

Now this 'universe' is actually a local picture and would be different
in other places.

From this we can conclude, that we cannot use the universe as universal
FoR, since the 'universe' is actually dependent on the FoR of the observer.

Since the observer is at rest in his own FoR, he cannot have any useful
velocity, since his own velocity is v=0 by definition.

So how could he reach c?

TH

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.07.2015 19:40, schrieb Tom Roberts:

> >> Then there was this experiment of Martin Grusenick, who measured some
> >> vertical influence in a modified MMX experiment.
> >
> > He measured the flexing of his apparatus as it rotated. Yes, this was
> > due to gravity; he did NOT measure any effect of gravity on the light
> > rays themselves.
>
> Poor Mr. Grusenick, since nobody takes his experiment serious and
> everybody claims, it was an effect of 'sacking'.
>
> I personally don't believe in such an explanation, since it's an
> explanation 'out of the blue'.

The distance between the beamsplitter and each mirror of Grusenick's
apparatus amounted to only about 5 cm or so. Do you understand anything
about the theory of how the MMX is supposed to work? What do such
short arm lengths imply concerning the sensitivity of his apparatus
to directional anisotropies in the speed of light?

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/8/15 7/8/15 - 4:11 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> If the speed of light is influenced by gravity and speed of light is constant
> (in a free falling FoR), than time is influenced by gravity.

But the LOCAL speed of light is NOT influenced by gravity (it is always c in
vacuum). The ticking of clocks ("time") is also not influenced by gravity [#] --
what can be influenced by gravity is how distant observers OBSERVE a clock.

As usual, the basic problem is that you are not precise enough in your thoughts
and words.

[#] The physical processes that govern a clock's ticking are
all LOCAL.

Yes, there is a pattern here: local phenomena are never affected by gravity,
while non-local phenomena can be.

> This has to be that way, since otherwise c could not be a constant.

Hmmm. If you would re=phrase you claims to be sufficiently precise, and correct,
then this would be OK. But your wishy-washy AMBIGUOUS statements are not correct.

> If now an influence of gravity is measured, than we could assume, that
> acceleration has an influence on time (and velocity has not).

No. Gravity is not necessarily acceleration -- again you need to be more
precise. That word has several meanings, some of which apply and some of which
don't -- by not specifying which you actually mean you get confused, and then
confuse your readers.

> That was my statement and the one you have rejected.

I reject all wishy-washy AMBIGUOUS statements. Such as yours.

> Now you don't like me to call gravity 'acceleration'. But as far as I know
> gravity behaves exactly like an acceleration.

Nope. Clocks at rest on a mountaintop and in the neighboring valley do not
remain in sync, due to the effects of gravitation. But no acceleration is
involved (here 'acceleration" is used in its Newtonian sense: d^2x/dt^2 in
coordinates fixed to the earth's surface).

>> NONSENSE! The twin paradox is already "solved" using SR (in which
>> acceleration does not affect the elapsed proper time of any clock,
>> except insofar as it affects the trajectory of the clock).
>
>
> Actually it's not 'solved', since otherwise it would not be called 'paradox'.

Look up "paradox" -- it has multiple meanings, and the sense in which it is used
means that it _IS_ "solved".

Like all too many people around here you take a casual
attitude towards the meanings of the words you use. That
is INSUFFICIENT for subtle subjects like relativity.

>>> [...] since SRT uses velocity in respect to some
>>> kind of universal FoR ('the universe').
>>
>> This is just plain wrong. You REALLY need to learn what SR actually is
>> before attempting to discuss it, or "supplant" it.,
>
> Ok, than you are certainly able to explain, in respect to what entity the
> velocity v in SRT has to be measured.

Velocity is always measured relative to some coordinates, and one MUST specify
which.


> [... further repetitions]


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 8:25:44 PM UTC+3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> But the LOCAL speed of light is NOT influenced by gravity (it is always c in
> vacuum). The ticking of clocks ("time") is also not influenced by gravity [#] --
> what can be influenced by gravity is how distant observers OBSERVE a clock.

Honest Roberts, I used to think you were clever but dishonest. Now I see I was wrong - you are just as silly as Gary Harnagel (much sillier than Paul Andersen for instance). So I am not going to call you "Honest" (a title preserved for Einsteiniana's hypnotists) anymore. You are just an insect, like Gary Harnagel, Odd Bodkin etc.

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

Looks like you are another OCD on this group. A "title" that's "reserved"?
You really believe that stuff?

--
Jan

[kenseto]

ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates???? I don't think so.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
> not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????

That's right.

> I don't think so.

I'm not sure anyone cares what you think.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
> > not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
>
> That's right.

In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/10/2015 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
>>> not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
>>
>> That's right.
>
> In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation
> than the ground clock second?

They didn't. You apparently are under the impression that's what they
did, but I've got no idea where you got that silly notion.

>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I'm not sure anyone cares what you think.
>

[kefischer]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:50:23 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <set...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
>> > not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
>>
>> That's right.
>
>In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second?

Instead of asking a troll questions,
or imagining why, read the links Paul
Anderson and I posted, they explain
the navigation and location systems.

The frequency that leaves the
satellite is shifted, relativity says that
is because of two different types of
motion, one affecting SR (the orbital
speed), and the other affecting GR,
which is blamed on gravitational
potential or gradient.


I won't tell anybody else, but it
might help if you know, Divergent
Matter may end up showing that
both effects are due to relative
velocity, the surface of the Earth
having an upward velocity in the
range of 6 km/s.

[Eddie Xenakis]

kefischer wrote:

> I won't tell anybody else, but it
> might help if you know, Divergent Matter may end up showing that both
> effects are due to relative velocity, the surface of the Earth having an
> upward velocity in the range of 6 km/s.

a 6 km/s, which is quite a large, gives 21600 Km/h ~ Mach 18. I hear no
sonic booms, does anybody? How many sonic booms are there in Mach 18
anyway?

You are the only capacity capable to understand Divergent Matter.

[kefischer]

And you change your name faster than the
speed of sound. :-)

Why do you also use the name bodkin?

[kefischer]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:00:24 +0000 (UTC), Eddie Xenakis
<edd...@unicomm.org> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>> I won't tell anybody else, but it
>> might help if you know, Divergent Matter may end up showing that both
>> effects are due to relative velocity, the surface of the Earth having an
>> upward velocity in the range of 6 km/s.
>
>a 6 km/s, which is quite a large, gives 21600 Km/h ~ Mach 18. I hear no
>sonic booms, does anybody? How many sonic booms are there in Mach 18
>anyway?

It isn't very often that an object large enough
to produce an audible boom is "struck" by the
atmosphere moving upward at about 6 km/s,
but it does happen.

Most objects falling from space have a
velocity in addition to that relative to the top
of the atmosphere, but if an object large
enough, were catapulted upward 200 km,
it would cause a sonic boom at some
point as it "falls".

The higher an object is catapulted,
the greater it is given, and it retains that
velocity in the Divergent Matter model,
reducing the apparent relative motion,
which causes the appearance of a
gravitational gradient.

>You are the only capacity capable to understand Divergent Matter.

I suppose, for now.

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:38:00 PM UTC-4, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:50:23 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <set...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> > ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
> >> > not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
> >>
> >> That's right.
> >
> >In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second?
>
> Instead of asking a troll questions,
> or imagining why, read the links Paul
> Anderson and I posted, they explain
> the navigation and location systems.
>
> The frequency that leaves the
> satellite is shifted, relativity says that
> is because of two different types of
> motion, one affecting SR (the orbital
> speed), and the other affecting GR,
> which is blamed on gravitational
> potential or gradient.

We have no clue what we were talking about.

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
> >>> not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
> >>
> >> That's right.
> >
> > In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation
> > than the ground clock second?
>
> They didn't. You apparently are under the impression that's what they
> did, but I've got no idea where you got that silly notion.

Idiot.

[Thomas Heger]

I don't think he's dishonest.

There is another problem I try to understand:

I'm kind of hobbyist and had developed some ideas about how to connect
GR to QM.

I found a quite convincing way to do this (start at GR and 'march' in
the direction of QM and build particles from spacetime).

I though: good idea! Seems to work!

Then I tried to show this to someone, but nobody showed any kind of
interest. How's that????

Answer: the idea itself is already known - and at least one hundred years.

Than came the 'bad guys' and utilised the concept (for sinister purposes
??) and deviated the general public from significant progress in
theoretical physics.

This is something like a club and has insiders and outsiders. The
insiders have to prevent outsiders from making progress and if they do
so anyhow and without permission, these outsiders are ridiculed or even
attacked.

To make this possible enormous amounts of money are needed and control
over the media. They praise blatant nonsense as most significant
discovery and all the 'club-members' are requested to agree. (All are
nodding)

And this goes over and over and over again, hence the outsiders are
getting aggressive and rants turn into insults.

This would be a bad idea, since, after all, it's science and not a war.


TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/11/15 7/11/15 1:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> This is something like a club and has insiders and outsiders.

That is true, sort-of. The "club" consists of people who understand modern
physics. ANYBODY can join, but it requires STUDY, KNOWLEDGE, and UNDERSTANDING.

> The insiders have
> to prevent outsiders from making progress

NONSENSE! The "outsiders" are INCAPABLE of making progress.

There is no instance in the history of physics of someone
making a significant contribution who was not familiar with
the then-current experiments and the then-current theories.
So anyone who TRULY wants to contribute to physics will be
making efforts to learn about ALL of the current experiments
and theories. Why do you think I compiled that webpage of
experiments testing SR? -- because when I started I was not
familiar with those experiments.

> and if they do so anyhow and without
> permission, these outsiders are ridiculed or even attacked.

More nonsense. YOU just don't have a clue about how physics ACTUALLY works.
(Yes, science in general and physics in particular are SOCIAL processes.)

It is not for being an "outsider" that fools and idiots are ridiculed, it is for
their IGNORANCE.


> [... even crazier nonsense, showing how clueless he is]

You're just full of sour grapes because no real physicist will give credence to
your personal fantasies.

The only cure is to STUDY. You _MUST_ understand the current experiments in
order to avoid promulgating nonsense that is already refuted. You _MUST_
understand the current theories in order to be able to present your ideas in
ways that physicists can understand -- the vocabulary of physics is very important.


Note the VERY different approaches between you (and the other fools and idiots
around here), and an experienced physicist (myself). I did not sit around
grousing about how the "club" won't let me in, I went out and STUDIED the
aspects I did not already know. As a result, I make my living doing physics, and
have presented colloquia and papers on the experimental basis of SR, and on my
current research. In contrast, you guys have done NOTHING.

The attitude of many around here seems to be: "I'm going to
disprove relativity and make a name for myself by replacing it".
That is HOPELESS -- nobody is ever going to "replace" relativity.
A more appropriate and successful approach is: "I'm going to
learn all I can about relativity and modern physics, and figure
out how to extend current theories into new domains, and perhaps
formulate new ones."


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 11.07.2015 15:43, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 7/11/15 7/11/15 1:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> This is something like a club and has insiders and outsiders.
>
> That is true, sort-of. The "club" consists of people who understand
> modern physics. ANYBODY can join, but it requires STUDY, KNOWLEDGE, and
> UNDERSTANDING.
>
>
>> The insiders have
>> to prevent outsiders from making progress
>
> NONSENSE! The "outsiders" are INCAPABLE of making progress.
>
> There is no instance in the history of physics of someone
> making a significant contribution who was not familiar with
> the then-current experiments and the then-current theories.
> So anyone who TRULY wants to contribute to physics will be
> making efforts to learn about ALL of the current experiments
> and theories. Why do you think I compiled that webpage of
> experiments testing SR? -- because when I started I was not
> familiar with those experiments.
>

You have - together with others - rejected the experiment of Martin
Grusenick.

It is not a scientific approach to reject a result, because it
challenges certain believes. So the experiment had to be replicated, but
better materials had to be used and more and better trained personnel.

But instead the burden of a difficult experiment is put onto the
shoulders of a young student, who simply cannot do, what he is requested
to do.

Now the experiment is kind of swept under the rug, with dubious
arguments, and subsequently forgotten.


There are other examples of the same ilk.

E.g. I like the book 'Geometry of Time' from Alexander Franklin Meyer,
(who shreds 'big-bang-theory' to pieces).

Than we have Neil Adams and his films about 'Growing Earth' (what I
personally assume is true).

And we have, of course, 'Global warming' and related subjects.

This gives an overall unpleasant picture of what is called the
'scientific community', since science is about truth and not about believes.


TH

[JanPB]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:40:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]

> There is another problem I try to understand:
>
> I'm kind of hobbyist and had developed some ideas about how to connect
> GR to QM.
>
> I found a quite convincing way to do this (start at GR and 'march' in
> the direction of QM and build particles from spacetime).
>
> I though: good idea! Seems to work!
>
> Then I tried to show this to someone, but nobody showed any kind of
> interest. How's that????

Because it's virtually certain your theory is wrong. The basic problem is
that QM is (basically) linear and GR is (basically) non-linear. The twain
don't meet.

> Answer: the idea itself is already known - and at least one hundred years.

What idea? How to fuse QM and GR? Nobody knows how to do it yet.

> Than came the 'bad guys' and utilised the concept (for sinister purposes
> ??) and deviated the general public from significant progress in
> theoretical physics.

No, it is you who is deviating into a Hollywwod view of physics.

> This is something like a club and has insiders and outsiders. The
> insiders have to prevent outsiders from making progress and if they do
> so anyhow and without permission, these outsiders are ridiculed or even
> attacked.

Nobody is "preventing" or "ridiculing", give me a break! All that's
happening is people who work in the area are naturally not keen on
wasting time on obvious nonsense.

> To make this possible enormous amounts of money are needed and control
> over the media.

Hollywood view of reality again.

> They praise blatant nonsense as most significant
> discovery and all the 'club-members' are requested to agree. (All are
> nodding)

Nonsense. Dreamland. TV soap material.

> And this goes over and over and over again, hence the outsiders are
> getting aggressive and rants turn into insults.

The "outsiders" are getting aggresive because they have no manners
and not enough self-criticism to see that what they do
can never succeed UNLESS they do their homework. Here is a concrete
example of what I mean: I've been on this newsgroup since (before) its
inception, i.e. for about 20 (twenty) years. So was Tom. During that
time not a single "amateur critic" has ever answered a single, VERY basic
test question. So e.g. a guy makes grandiose claims about everyone being
incorrect about this or that property of the Schwarzschild solution yet
himself cannot answer simplest questions about differential geometry.
Another laughs at Einstein but doesn't know what Lagrangian is. Yet
another yells invective at the entire world (it seems) and not only cannot
answer simple questions, he says this sort of knowledge is unnecessary,
instead only what he knows about an unrelated subject is, apparently, both
sufficient and paramount. On and on it goes.

> This would be a bad idea, since, after all, it's science and not a war.

The sooner you abandon this fantasy view of scientists and their work,
the better off you'll be. Truth is always "boring" compared to fantasy
but it's much more interesting. Actually, it's not even a contest.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/15 7/12/15 2:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.07.2015 15:43, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> [Grusenick measured the flexing of his apparatus]

> You have - together with others - rejected the experiment of Martin Grusenick.

Yes, as a "measurement" of something related to the speed of light in earth's
gravitational field.

NO, as a measurement of the flexing of apparatus.

> It is not a scientific approach to reject a result, because it challenges
> certain believes.

No, of course not. But is most definitely _IS_ a reason to reject a given
experiment as measuring something about light when it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that his
apparatus flexes enough to account for his results.

> So the experiment had to be replicated, but better materials
> had to be used and more and better trained personnel.

Rather basic calculations using the known properties of materials show that it
is simply IMPOSSIBLE to construct an interferometer capable of being rotated in
a vertical plane without flexing by amounts on the order of the wavelength of
visible light (or more, usually much more). There are NO KNOWN MATERIALS rigid
enough to do what he wanted to do.

For example, Miller's interferometer's fringes moved significantly when it was
tilted by the inclination induced by placing a coin on one arm (it was floating
in mercury, so it automatically re-balanced itself for minimum strain in the
arms). That is the weight of a coin compared to the rotating mass which was many
hundreds of pounds.

> But instead the burden of a difficult experiment is put onto the shoulders of a
> young student, who simply cannot do, what he is requested to do.

NONSENSE! This young student was insufficiently educated in physics to realize
that his approach was fatally flawed.

This shows how experimental physicists MUST be knowledgeable about
ALL aspects of physics, not just the ones they are trying to test.
In this case, knowledge of basic material properties and an
understanding of the theory of elastic solids are ESSENTIAL.


> [...]

> There are other examples of the same ilk.

Name them.

I think you'll find that physicists have found fatal flaws in all of them, but
YOU are too ignorant to understand their arguments.

> E.g. I like the book 'Geometry of Time' from Alexander Franklin Meyer, (who
> shreds 'big-bang-theory' to pieces).

I have not seen this. But it clearly is not at all the same (i.e. about an
EXPERIMENT that you think was rejected inappropriately).

And YOUR opinion about him "shredding big-bang theory" carries no weight with
me, or with other physicists, as it is CLEAR that you do not understand the
observational underpinnings of that theory, and thus do not have an INFORMED
opinion.

> Than we have Neil Adams and his films about 'Growing Earth' (what I personally
> assume is true).

Ditto. YOUR opinions are uninformed, and thus useless.

> And we have, of course, 'Global warming' and related subjects.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It seems you are also too ignorant to distinguish
among them. YOUR problem, not mine, and not science's.

Hint: this is NOT a single EXPERIMENT, it is a host of
related observations supporting a class of models.

> This gives an overall unpleasant picture of what is called the 'scientific
> community', since science is about truth and not about believes.

Not so. It merely gives an overall unpleasant picture of your PERSONAL IGNORANCE.

The issues of global warming have become politicized and
are subject to the media; this is not science at all.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.07.2015 05:57, schrieb Tom Roberts:
..

>
>> [...]
>> There are other examples of the same ilk.
>
> Name them.
>
> I think you'll find that physicists have found fatal flaws in all of
> them, but YOU are too ignorant to understand their arguments.
>
>
>> E.g. I like the book 'Geometry of Time' from Alexander Franklin Meyer,
>> (who
>> shreds 'big-bang-theory' to pieces).
>
> I have not seen this. But it clearly is not at all the same (i.e. about
> an EXPERIMENT that you think was rejected inappropriately).

This is a very good book and I really like it. It was freely available
as pdf for a long time, but now you have to buy a copy.

What he did was roughly this: he put a large star catalogue into a
computer and sorted the stars by distance. Than he compared the
statistics with Hubble's predictions and found discrepancies of about
four orders of magnitude.

This is VERY large and would certainly demand an explanation. His
explanation: big-bang theory is wrong.

I do agree and claim, that CMBR is generated locally and recent. (It's
actually an effect of gravity.)

> And YOUR opinion about him "shredding big-bang theory" carries no weight
> with me, or with other physicists, as it is CLEAR that you do not
> understand the observational underpinnings of that theory, and thus do
> not have an INFORMED opinion.
>
>
>> Than we have Neil Adams and his films about 'Growing Earth' (what I
>> personally
>> assume is true).
>
> Ditto. YOUR opinions are uninformed, and thus useless.

There was a German geologist named 'Ott Cristoph Hilgenberger', who
wrote a book called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. (~>'About the growing Ball
of the Earth')

This was accepted science up to the 50th. But then it was replaced by
plate tectonics.

Now the question: why?

The subject is related to all the other 'dark projects', what the US and
the plutocrats have conducted in the meantime.

But mainly it's a question about certain materials (predominantly oil).

Reason: If 'Growing Earth' is true, than 'abiogenic oil' is also true.
And this is a really big deal.

To divert from this idea, science itself was driven into a mess - by
certain people and interest groups.

The 'bad guys' apparently took over with Heaviside, who established
vectors instead of quaternions. Than came Planck and established Quantum
mechanics. But e.g. Tait and Maxwell had different ideas and those got
lost.

It is possible to see some kind of plan, that (apparently) intends to
funnel wealth into the pockets of certain groups, by unethical means in
science.


From my own experience I can say, it is almost impossible to discuss
'Growing Earth', since it violates certain dogmas: 'big-bang
nucleosytheis' for example.

It also contradicts the so called standard-model of QM, since if GE is
true, than the idea of particles itself is wrong.

If so, than 'transmutation' could be possible. And this was shown to be
possible by George Lochak.

>
>> And we have, of course, 'Global warming' and related subjects.
>
> That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It seems you are also too ignorant to
> distinguish among them. YOUR problem, not mine, and not science's.
>
> Hint: this is NOT a single EXPERIMENT, it is a host of
> related observations supporting a class of models.
>

For example Hilgenberger predicted rising temperatures over long periods
of time, due to 'Growing Earth'.

So, the question is NOT, if the temperatures would rise, but what have
caused it.

CO2 is in my eyes the entirely wrong idea, since the atmosphere is not
that important in the energy balance as water.

So we have unscientific blunder, that all the media spread as latest
news ('greenhouse gases') and politicians, that try to save the planet
by trying to solve an irrelevant problem.

There are, of course, important problems (like e.g. all the plastic in
the oceans, the clear-cuts in the rain forests, the dying species...),
but politicians concentrate on 'greenhouse gases'.


TH

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> There was a German geologist named 'Ott Cristoph Hilgenberger',
> who wrote a book called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. (~>'About the
> growing Ball of the Earth')
>
> This was accepted science up to the 50th. But then it was
> replaced by plate tectonics.
>
> Now the question: why?

Observations and experiments. Also, it's certainly not true that
the idea was ever an accepted model. It was, for a while, a
hypothesis that a handful of serious researchers were considering.
Another huge problem for the idea is that no one was able to make a
convincing explanation for why the earth would be growing.

Plate tectonics was rapidly accepted, and since then there has been
an ever-growing (pun intended) amount of data in support of it.
Plate tectonics has survived because it is a good model of nature;
"growing earth" is dead because it is not. Simple as that.

> The 'bad guys' apparently took over with Heaviside, who
> established vectors instead of quaternions.

First were the Freemasons and the Illuminati, who as you may know
still completely control mainstream science and are responsible for
the fact that every established scientist is working for evil.
Today, the only chance for true science is from anti-scientist
cranks like Thomas Heger. Thank you for your bold and important
work in fighting this most horrible evil to have ever existed, the
cause of war, disease, human oppression and natural destruction.


---Tim Shuba---

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.07.2015 09:35, schrieb shuba:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> There was a German geologist named 'Ott Cristoph Hilgenberger',
>> who wrote a book called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. (~>'About the
>> growing Ball of the Earth')
>>
>> This was accepted science up to the 50th. But then it was
>> replaced by plate tectonics.
>>
>> Now the question: why?
>
> Observations and experiments. Also, it's certainly not true that
> the idea was ever an accepted model. It was, for a while, a
> hypothesis that a handful of serious researchers were considering.
> Another huge problem for the idea is that no one was able to make a
> convincing explanation for why the earth would be growing.

Actually I didn't wanted to prove GE, but tried to use GE as a prove
from a certain idea, that I call 'structured spacetime'.

From this I had the impression, that matter could be created rather
cold, local and in real time. To prove this I was looking for hints in
this direction and found them in the films of Neal Adams.

This showed, that Earth would gain mass from the inside and this would
be simply impossible, if the standard model is true.

So I tried to prove GE and found several ways to do this. There exist a
large number of observations, that are in fact incompatible to the
assumptions of PT.

For example:
there exists a theorem of Euler, that movement of a spherical piece of
the surface of a ball upon this ball is equivalent to a rotation around
a so called 'Euler pole'.

Plates are such pieces, hence had to have round edges opposite to their
Euler pole (what they don't have).

Or: the crust has lower density then the interior beneath the crust,
hence crust is kind of 'swimming'. This would make it hard for the crust
to enter into the mantle, especially if you consider the rising pressures.

Or: we have 'triple junctions' (e.g. Golf of Aden). Such formations
violate the idea of 'conveyor belts' (what PT need to keep the surface
size in balance).

Or: the age of the sea-floor has the wrong direction. It is younger in
the middle of the Pacific than near Chile. But that is opposite to what
PT assumes, since that coast is a subduction zone (according to PT).

And so forth.

> Plate tectonics was rapidly accepted, and since then there has been
> an ever-growing (pun intended) amount of data in support of it.
> Plate tectonics has survived because it is a good model of nature;
> "growing earth" is dead because it is not. Simple as that.
>
>> The 'bad guys' apparently took over with Heaviside, who
>> established vectors instead of quaternions.
>
> First were the Freemasons and the Illuminati, who as you may know
> still completely control mainstream science and are responsible for
> the fact that every established scientist is working for evil.

Nobody knows whos has done something, if this is not public knowledge.
(Me neither)

I have actually my own 'conspiracy theories' (reason: I found, that
physics s**** and wanted to do something else. )

According to these Hitler was not an Austrian, but the false identity of
an Englishmen, who was raised in the house of Cosima Wagner and Houston
Steward Chamberlain.

Another one is about Alan Turing. In my opinion his machine didn't work,
but was used to cover the fact, that England got the Enigma codes from
Dönitz, who was another British spy.

Another one: the Brits have rescued Martin Borman and he orchestrated a
revolt in East Berlin, that later became Germany's national holiday,
because he wanted to top Hitler in making the Germans celebrate his
birthday (instead of Hitler's).

But these stories are just ideas and I don't regard them as truth.

Growing Earth is (in my eyes) correct.



TH

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I have actually my own 'conspiracy theories' (reason: I found,
> that physics s**** and wanted to do something else. )

Your personal approach to physics certainly sucks, as well as your
rabid antagonism to scientists of all sorts. How *you* can even
take yourself seriously is beyond me. Maybe you really don't.

> Growing Earth is (in my eyes) correct.

How nice for you. Keep your mind sealed up, and whatever you do,
don't look at the data or attempt to learn the current theories.
Same goes for your own failed garbage, "structured spacetime".


---Tim Shuba---

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/10/2015 10:17 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:00:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:26:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> ROTFLOL.....so clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings is
>>>>> not because that they are accumulating clock seconds at different rates????
>>>>
>>>> That's right.
>>>
>>> In that case, why did they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation
>>> than the ground clock second?
>>
>> They didn't. You apparently are under the impression that's what they
>> did, but I've got no idea where you got that silly notion.
>
> Idiot.

I don't know why you'd call someone else an idiot for an obvious mistake
you make. That's not going to get you anywhere but alone.

[Thomas Heger]

The idea itself is relatively simple, but quite different to common models.

E.g. I assume, that all systems are more or less 'open'.

This means, that we don't have well defined distinct entities in nature,
but all natural systems are more or less 'one thing'.

There exist also particles, but as states (or: structures), not as
distinct entities.

Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach and regards particles
as fundamental. I simply turn this upside down and assume, that
particles are similar to patterns of/in an otherwise invisible medium
(spacetime), what gives 'structured spacetime'.

This idea is certainly a little off the mainstream´, that's why it needs
some support.

The support I hoped to get from 'Growing Earth'.

Actually there are other possibilities for proof: I assume, that dust
could be created by certain pulses inside a sealed cube of plastic.

Unfortunately I don't know exactly, what kind of waves are needed, but
assume, that pulsed microwaves of a certain strength would do this
(create dust).


TH

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:20:46 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:

> You have - together with others - rejected the experiment of Martin
> Grusenick.
>
> It is not a scientific approach to reject a result, because it
> challenges certain believes. So the experiment had to be replicated, but
> better materials had to be used and more and better trained personnel.
>
> But instead the burden of a difficult experiment is put onto the
> shoulders of a young student, who simply cannot do, what he is requested
> to do.
>
> Now the experiment is kind of swept under the rug, with dubious
> arguments, and subsequently forgotten.

"Dubious arguments" you say?
You refused to answer my question above:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The distance between the beamsplitter and each mirror of Grusenick's
apparatus amounted to only about 5 cm or so. Do you understand
anything about the theory of how the MMX is supposed to work? What
do such short arm lengths imply concerning the sensitivity of his
apparatus to directional anisotropies in the speed of light?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Review Grusenick's video between approximately 0:50 and 1:05. Compare
the beamsplitter-to-mirror distances with the length of Grusenick's
fingers.

What sorts of directional anisotropies in the speed of light must be
present to account for seven fringes of shift with the apparatus
rotated in the vertical direction? Remember that the apparatus is
sensitive to second-order effects. Is it reasonable to presume that
such anisotropies should not already have been noticed?

[kefischer]

Get an x-ray of your skull, and you'll find saw-dust.

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach

Yes. It is a useful scientific hypothesis, with predictive power
and supporting data.


---Tim Shuba---

[Thomas Heger]

Possibly the idea is 'useful'.

But what do you think about the validity of this assumption?

I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
observations.

E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
after big-bang-expansion.

But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
in all directions.

TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.07.2015 01:43, schrieb shuba:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach
>>
>> Yes. It is a useful scientific hypothesis, with predictive power
>> and supporting data.
>>
>
>
> Possibly the idea is 'useful'.
>
> But what do you think about the validity of this assumption?
>
> I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
> observations.
>
> E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
> surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
> after big-bang-expansion.

Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang
model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought
of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric
center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big
bang universe has no boundary and no center.

So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big
bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of
assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.

>
> But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
> in all directions.
>
> TH

[kefischer]

Apparently nucleosynthesis went right
over your head.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nucleosynthesis

[Gary Harnagel]

And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly: the finite speed
of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.

So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
in the universe the farther they are away from us.

Gary

[Thomas Heger]

In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to
point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound)
view on the universe.

This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells'
of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one
thing.

Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or
measure otherwise).

But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').

I also assume, that time is local and we base OUR observations on OUR
time. (I call that a 'time domain').

And we have the inverse to timelike, that is spacelike and this means:
distance in no time.

So in fact we have a spectrum of velocities, ranging from zero (0°) to
infinity (90°). The middle is 45° (in the spacetime view) and that is c.

This 45° is called 'light-like' and this is always 45°, however you may
define 'timelike'.

From this I draw the conclusion, that to any observer belongs a
different 'universe', what is not really universal, but appears to be.

The spacelike connections are actually static (have no time component),
what is a feature of static fields.

The timelike direction is the opposite, hence does not cover space and
stays in time. This is a feature of mass.

Now I combine both an have an atom.

Now this depends on the timeline and changing that would make matter
appear as radiation (and vice versa).

So I came to the conclusion, that matter must be kind of 'relative', too.

(long version here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )


TH

[Gary Harnagel]

So why did you make the naïve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
naïve "shell" idea? You aren't making sense here.

Gary

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2015 10:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or
> measure otherwise).
>
> But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').

That's certainly true. But anything that is outside the domain of what
we can see is also not scientifically testable, and so is not really a
useful conjecture, at least not in science.

If you start speculating about the parts of the universe we cannot see,
cannot detect, cannot test -- then what you are doing is philosophy, not
physics.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.07.2015 12:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
..

>>> And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly: the finite speed
>>> of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
>>> we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.
>>>
>>> So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
>>> in the universe the farther they are away from us.
>>>
>>
>> In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to
>> point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound)
>> view on the universe.
>>
>> This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells'
>> of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one
>> thing.
>

> So why did you make the naīve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
> naīve "shell" idea? You aren't making sense here.
>

I didn't make such a claim. I wrote, that what we regard as universe is
not the universe. This is so, because what we see is not universal, but
a certain impression, that we have here on planet Earth.

This observation is organised in spherical shells with different
distances (to us).

But since we here on this planet are not regarded as the centre of the
universe, we cannot assume, such shells are real.

So: what we see (in the sky), that does not exist, but is our impression
of something remote in space and time.

We see backwards in time and the further away the older the picture
gets. Since the universe is assumed to be about 13,5 billion years old,
we would expect to see the big band in 13.5 billion light-years distance.

Only: we don't see such an event, but stars and galaxies.

This is at least odd, since this would require our solar system to be at
the outer front of the universe and to have moved away from an assumed
centre always with lightspeed (assumed, that nothing could surpass the
speed of light).

But the universe does not at all look like some kind of edge. Instead
we can see in all directions about that far.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.07.2015 16:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or
>> measure otherwise).
>>
>> But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').
>
> That's certainly true. But anything that is outside the domain of what
> we can see is also not scientifically testable, and so is not really a
> useful conjecture, at least not in science.
>
> If you start speculating about the parts of the universe we cannot see,
> cannot detect, cannot test -- then what you are doing is philosophy, not
> physics.

Both of your arguments are particularly weak:

a) since when do things out of the realm of visibility do not belong to
reality?

b) 'philosophy' was once the name for what is now called 'physics'.

TH

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> We see backwards in time and the further away the older the
> picture gets. Since the universe is assumed to be about 13,5
> billion years old, we would expect to see the big band in 13.5
> billion light-years distance.
>
> Only: we don't see such an event, but stars and galaxies.

Actually "it" is seen, as highly redshifted light. From this
light, a great deal has been inferred about the early universe,
with much more work ongoing by cosmologists.

e.g. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/235-Distant-Galaxies-and-Origins-of-the-Universe

"Spitzer's supersensitive infrared eyes can also probe the
cumulative infrared glow of countless unseen galaxies that
are too faint to be detected individually. This allows
astronomers to interpret the history of star and galaxy
formation, as well as the presence of dust in the earliest
baby galaxies. Scientists refer to this glow as, the
cosmic infrared background."

Note that the background radiation collected by this telescope
is not the CMBR, the oldest "glow" from the early universe.


---Tim Shuba---

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:36:15 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 15.07.2015 12:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > So why did you make the naīve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
> > naīve "shell" idea? You aren't making sense here.
>
> I didn't make such a claim.

Lying is not becoming. You wrote:

"I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
observations.
"E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its surface.
That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect after big-
bang-expansion."

The rest of a prevaricators words snipped.

[Odd Bodkin]

They are part of reality. But untestable speculations about that part of
reality are not science. This is the main point.

>
> b) 'philosophy' was once the name for what is now called 'physics'.

And there is a very distinct reason why science separated from philosophy.

Attempts to rejoin physics and philosophy are counterproductive.

>
> TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.07.2015 17:40, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>> So why did you make the naīve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
>>> naīve "shell" idea? You aren't making sense here.
>>
>> I didn't make such a claim.
>
> Lying is not becoming. You wrote:
>
> "I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
> observations.
> "E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its surface.
> That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect after big-
> bang-expansion."
>

This is actually the cause, why I had given up physics. It's dishonest
people like you, who spoil the air with evil stench.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.07.2015 18:13, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or
>>>> measure otherwise).
>>>>
>>>> But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').
>>>
>>> That's certainly true. But anything that is outside the domain of what
>>> we can see is also not scientifically testable, and so is not really a
>>> useful conjecture, at least not in science.
>>>
>>> If you start speculating about the parts of the universe we cannot see,
>>> cannot detect, cannot test -- then what you are doing is philosophy, not
>>> physics.
>>
>> Both of your arguments are particularly weak:
>>
>> a) since when do things out of the realm of visibility do not belong to
>> reality?
>
> They are part of reality. But untestable speculations about that part of
> reality are not science. This is the main point.
>
>>
>> b) 'philosophy' was once the name for what is now called 'physics'.
>
> And there is a very distinct reason why science separated from philosophy.
>
> Attempts to rejoin physics and philosophy are counterproductive.

i follow the ideas of Karl Popper, who wrote:

"A definition of the word ‘philosophy’ can only have the character of a
convention, of an agreement; and I, at any rate, see no merit in the
arbitrary proposal to define the word ‘philosophy’ in a way that may
well prevent a student of philosophy from trying to contribute, qua
philosopher, to the advancement of our knowledge of the world.

Also, it seems to me paradoxical that philosophers who take pride in
specializing in the study of ordinary language nevertheless believe that
they know enough about cosmology to be sure that it is in essence so
different from philosophy that philosophy cannot make any contribution
to it. And indeed they are mistaken. For it is a fact that purely
metaphysical ideas—and therefore philosophical ideas—have been of
the greatest importance for cosmology."

From:
Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Preface, page xxiii


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

You also follow selected excerpts from Popper which rationalize your
methodology. If you'd like, we could get into some of the other excerpts
from the same book (perhaps a bit deeper than the first few pages) that
might not be so pleasing to you.

I have some training in philosophy, and I've also read a fair amount of
books on the subject of physics. Though the boundary may elude some,
there is no confusion between metaphysics (meta - physics, literally
"beyond physics") and physics. There is semantic validity to the
distinction between the two.

Science is defined by the application and practice of the scientific
method. Such method is not required in philosophy, though to the degree
which you use the method, you can say you are doing both. However,
investigations to advance knowledge of the world WITHOUT the scientific
method are not science, by definition.

Nevertheless, I do run into people every now and again -- and you are a
good example -- who have an agenda in blurring the line. The reason is
that physics requires more labor and skills than metaphysics. So you
would be motivated to do the EASIER thing -- metaphysics -- while hoping
to claim doing the HARDER thing -- physics. This is like wearing a
doctor's costume while performing first aid -- you are actually doing an
ordinary thing while trying to appear doing a less ordinary thing. And
if you have fooled yourself into thinking you are doing physics, then
you can at least say you've fooled one.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:36:49 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> This is actually the cause, why I had given up physics. It's dishonest
> people like you, who spoil the air with evil stench.
>
> TH

Hey, if you want to be dishonest, no one's stopping you. Just don't call
other people what you are.

[Thomas Heger]

But I do not pretend to be a physicist. I had this as kind of a hobby
and have limited overview about the wide array of things, that
physicists are doing in real life. That is all very interesting, but not
my business.

So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
among others - 'Growing Earth'.

Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.

All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).

Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
(plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.

There are - nevertheless - a few bright outsiders, that show up with
good, valid ideas. But watch out, what happens to them: Schauberger for
example or John Hutchison.

If people dare to think for themselves and out of the realm allowed by
their sect, they get serious trouble, since the bunch of brainwashed
young wolves will stalk them all over the place and finally 'win'.


You also make the impression, you regard science as some sort of
'sport'. This is a VERY bad idea and has no foundation in the
requirements of the science itself, but in the sociotope of the physicists.

Those like to keep 'their' science clean and demand from any foreigners,
to pass through all the same brainwashing, they themselves went through.

This is what in effect you demanded from me, unless you wouldn't discuss
anything with me.


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

That's fine. And as such, what you are doing is then metaphysics
(because that is accessible to you) and not physics. And this is rather
the point -- that just talking about physical things does not make the
idea a scientifically interesting idea. To be scientifically
interesting, it would have to be presented in the way scientific ideas
are presented. Which is what you are not able to do.

>
> So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
> among others - 'Growing Earth'.
>
> Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
> standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.

Note that all of those are PHYSICAL THEORIES, with all the components a
physical theory requires.

>
> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).
>
> Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
> 'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
> (plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.

I disagree. I think what it requires is some background training in the
subject you are not familiar with. I think there are a lot of people who
do not want to have to deal with that background training before being
able to talk competently about that subject matter, because they are
lazy. And so these people dismiss and disparage the value of that
background training, calling it "brainwashing" or "religious training"
or "zombie hypnosis" or other ridiculous things. When, in fact, it is
just EDUCATION. Education that these people find too much of a burden to
take on.

>
> There are - nevertheless - a few bright outsiders, that show up with
> good, valid ideas. But watch out, what happens to them: Schauberger for
> example or John Hutchison.
>
> If people dare to think for themselves and out of the realm allowed by
> their sect, they get serious trouble, since the bunch of brainwashed
> young wolves will stalk them all over the place and finally 'win'.

People who dare to think for themselves without benefit of an education
are like people who try to learn torch welding by walking up to a rig
and turning it on. At best, they are going to founder uselessly; at
worst, they are going to inflict damage on themselves and possibly burn
down the garage. It's a foolhardy thing to do, and others who encourage
these fools as being "original thinkers" and "bold vanguards" are
themselves pretty senseless. IMO.

>
>
> You also make the impression, you regard science as some sort of
> 'sport'. This is a VERY bad idea and has no foundation in the
> requirements of the science itself, but in the sociotope of the physicists.
>
> Those like to keep 'their' science clean and demand from any foreigners,
> to pass through all the same brainwashing, they themselves went through.
>
> This is what in effect you demanded from me, unless you wouldn't discuss
> anything with me.
>
>
> TH

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).

I don't think so. It's actually been an instructive look into the
fervently anti-scientist world view of a physics kook who detests
just about everything about modern science and education. Plus, and
this can be important on usenet, much of it has been funny as hell.

> a few bright outsiders [...] with good, valid ideas

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

See? That's crank comedy gold.


---Tim Shuba---

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.07.2015 15:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
>> among others - 'Growing Earth'.
>>
>> Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
>> standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.
>
> Note that all of those are PHYSICAL THEORIES, with all the components a
> physical theory requires.
>
>>
>> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).
>>
>> Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
>> 'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
>> (plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.
>
> I disagree. I think what it requires is some background training in the
> subject you are not familiar with. I think there are a lot of people who
> do not want to have to deal with that background training before being
> able to talk competently about that subject matter, because they are
> lazy. And so these people dismiss and disparage the value of that
> background training, calling it "brainwashing" or "religious training"
> or "zombie hypnosis" or other ridiculous things. When, in fact, it is
> just EDUCATION. Education that these people find too much of a burden to
> take on.

My impression:

there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and
the official nonsense is for the stupid public.

To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed
as greatest achievement of mankind.

To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret,
there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing',
but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.

The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates
into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are
smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and
alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he
could eventually peep into 'real science'.

If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by
the Harry Potters of Cornell.


TH

[kefischer]

Are you by any chance a child raised
in Soviet Germany?

I suppose that could cause an insane distrust.

[underante]

but it is all for their own good. far wiser minds than ours have regrettably determined that the general public has to be protected from such potentially catastrophic secret knowledge. for, lets face it, the average IQ of 100 is only just about sufficient to enable your average joe schmoe to walk and talk at the same time, but (in the UK at least) they have been obliged to pass laws to stop people trying to simultaneously chat on a cellphone and drive a vehicle at the same time.
such misunderstanding!
big brother really _does_ love you.

[Odd Bodkin]

This is just bat-shit crazy.

So, according to you, once someone enters the Hallowed Halls of
University Science, they must sign a pact that upon penalty of death,
they will never reveal the secrets of The Cult. And nobody has escaped
that Cult, and nobody has tried. And according to you, once you are a
Professional Scientist, you are always a Professional Scientist, and may
never leave to take up a different occupation. Because if anybody ever
did quit being a Professional Physicist and instead became, say, a
magazine editor or a musician, then they wouldn't feel any particular
threat against revealing the existence of The Cult. After all, what
would keep someone who left science for a different field from saying,
"You know, they made me sign a pact when I went into graduate school,
but I'm telling you that it's all a big lie"? Yet, why don't all those
retirees and people who leave the field say such things?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.07.2015 23:55, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

..

>>
>> My impression:
>>
>> there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and
>> the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
>>
>> To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed
>> as greatest achievement of mankind.
>>
>> To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret,
>> there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing',
>> but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
>>
>> The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates
>> into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are
>> smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and
>> alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he
>> could eventually peep into 'real science'.
>>
>> If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by
>> the Harry Potters of Cornell.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
>
> This is just bat-shit crazy.
>
> So, according to you, once someone enters the Hallowed Halls of
> University Science, they must sign a pact that upon penalty of death,
> they will never reveal the secrets of The Cult. And nobody has escaped
> that Cult, and nobody has tried.

Well, the members of such a 'cult' would certainly get in trouble, if
they reveal certain secrets.

But that is not about science as we know it, but about the hidden
secrets, not meant to be known by the general public.

Certainly you may live a scientific life without ever getting in any
kind of contact with such secrets.

But there are other mechanisms, like who is hired into a job and who is
not, what make people observe invisible rules. So, if SRT is one of
these things, you may not put into doubt without risking the job, then
most scientists would never do.

In my eyes there are certain subjects, that have such 'protection
against critique': 'global warming' for example or 'big-bang cosmology'.

Other subjects (apparently) should be avoided, like gyroscopes or
certain features of water.

And we seemingly have kind of competition, to create the most obscure
theories, that have the most unjustified assumptions and the most
difficult methods used.

Those are than presented as 'gold standard' of science and as most
advanced representation of such obviously successful endeavour as physics.

TH

[Odd Bodkin]

What kind of trouble would they get in?

And if one of the Cult were to get disenchanted and were to defect? What
kind of trouble would he get into for revealing the secrets?

>
> But that is not about science as we know it, but about the hidden
> secrets, not meant to be known by the general public.
>
> Certainly you may live a scientific life without ever getting in any
> kind of contact with such secrets.
>
> But there are other mechanisms, like who is hired into a job and who is
> not, what make people observe invisible rules. So, if SRT is one of
> these things, you may not put into doubt without risking the job, then
> most scientists would never do.
>
> In my eyes there are certain subjects, that have such 'protection
> against critique': 'global warming' for example or 'big-bang cosmology'.
>
> Other subjects (apparently) should be avoided, like gyroscopes or
> certain features of water.
>
> And we seemingly have kind of competition, to create the most obscure
> theories, that have the most unjustified assumptions and the most
> difficult methods used.
>
> Those are than presented as 'gold standard' of science and as most
> advanced representation of such obviously successful endeavour as physics.
>
> TH
>
>
>

[Thomas Heger]

I' sorry, but I cannot answer such a question. But if I would design
such a plot, I would like the followers to keep their mouth shut. So
keeping secrets away from public view would be mandatory.

On the other hand, there are ordinary people and some of them might be
smart enough to show up with some sort of alternative ideas.

If they manage to present something, that sounds plausible and has
otherwise good results, than such ideas could be investigated further.

So I would like to replicate some experiments, like those of Viktor
Schauberger, Nikola Tesla or John Hutchison, since these men are
unrecognised outsiders with somehow interesting ideas.

(It's in any case more promising and rewarding to think 'out of the
box', since the mainstream is already explored.)

If such cults would exist, their members most likely do not want
outsiders to gain any sort of influence. But they can't help, if there
are successful experiments or other results of importance from outside
the mainstream.

Then the general public could eventually turn away from such sects and
leave them alone with their Voodoo.


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

I don't think such a plot could be successfully designed, unless you
were going to commit people to life in the Cult. Anybody who left the
Cult would have to be shot, because otherwise they would have no reason
not to tell the truth.

>
> On the other hand, there are ordinary people and some of them might be
> smart enough to show up with some sort of alternative ideas.
>
> If they manage to present something, that sounds plausible and has
> otherwise good results, than such ideas could be investigated further.

I think it's fine for an ordinary person to present a scientifically
ready idea. Whether they should be investigated further depends on
whether it is scientifically ready. A philosophical notion is not
scientifically ready.

>
> So I would like to replicate some experiments, like those of Viktor
> Schauberger, Nikola Tesla or John Hutchison, since these men are
> unrecognised outsiders with somehow interesting ideas.
>
> (It's in any case more promising and rewarding to think 'out of the
> box', since the mainstream is already explored.)
>
> If such cults would exist, their members most likely do not want
> outsiders to gain any sort of influence. But they can't help, if there
> are successful experiments or other results of importance from outside
> the mainstream.

If, if, if such cults exist. But as you can imagine, it is very
difficult to sustain such a cult, because anyone who was once a
scientist and is now pursuing a different vocation would quickly let the
cat out of the bag. Since no one has done that, then why believe the
cult exists?

>
> Then the general public could eventually turn away from such sects and
> leave them alone with their Voodoo.
>
>
> TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/18/2015 12:43 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Then the general public could eventually turn away from such sects and
> leave them alone with their Voodoo.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any voodoo or magic or mysticism in anything
that physicists have done in the last century. Why do you think it's voodoo?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.07.2015 18:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 7/18/2015 12:43 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Then the general public could eventually turn away from such sects and
>> leave them alone with their Voodoo.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see any voodoo or magic or mysticism in anything
> that physicists have done in the last century. Why do you think it's
> voodoo?
>

Voodoo is an occult practise in Haiti, where they kill chicken for some
reason and hope this would help. They also put pins into puppets, they
believe have an influence upon the targeted 'victim'.

Actually, I would regard this as nonsense and kind of helpless tries to
manipulate the world around.

Now I try to find 'Voodoo' in other realms, like economics or politics.

Then we see the same pattern: they spoil the earth with some blood and
put needles somewhere and hope, this would make things better.

(Once you complain, they make a puppet from you and put needles there.)


http://www.rebelscience.org/

"Truth is, voodoo science is much more detrimental to our understanding
of nature than crackpot science because society is easily fooled by its
authoritative mask and may, as a result, spend huge sums of money and
decades (if not centuries) chasing after fantasies. Voodoo science
regularly gets sold as legitimate science because its champions are
adept at making a name for themselves through careful propaganda. They
are very skilled at convincing the public (who ultimately pays for it
all) that it is too stupid to know the difference between good science
and bad science."

This is similar to Voodoo-priests, since that is their main advantage
(above their followers): they are able to convince their audience about
their own importance.

So you should put (in your imagination) the 'priest' (presenter of the
latest political/economical/scientific achievements) into an acceptable
Voodoo costume (maybe with some chicken bones through the nose).


TH

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Health-and-Science/Einstein-would-have-been-pleased-411597
"According to standard quantum mechanics, time "ticks" at the same speed all over the universe. In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity. But according to the general theory of relativity, time does not "tick" at the same pace everywhere as it is influenced by gravitational forces of large masses such as the Earth. The researchers thus asked what would happen to the clock after passing simultaneously through several places where time "ticks" at a different pace once it was in one place again."

Was that a relevant question to ask? Either Newton's universal time used in standard quantum mechanics or Einstein's "variable" time is wrong, so one of the two theories - quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity - should be immediately discarded. Which one? This is the only relavant question.

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:46:02 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Either Newton's universal time used in standard quantum mechanics or
> Einstein's "variable" time is wrong, so one of the two theories - quantum
> mechanics and Einstein's relativity - should be immediately discarded.

ompletely false assertion, which is the usual fare at Puerile Pentcho's
table. The CORRECT version of QM is QFT which includes SR. This, of
course, despatches his nonsense to the scap heap of dishonest claims.

> Which one? This is the only relavant question.
>
> Pentcho Valev

The question has been answered, which shows that it was a dishonest one

Gary

[JanPB]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 3:57:56 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The main poison killing physics is Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its logical child - the idiotic relative time (or spacetime):

Uh-oh... Pentcho discovers quantum mechanics.

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

The problem of incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics will never be solved by the scientific establishment - in its unsolved state this problem has been a money-spinner for both physicists and philosophers for a very long time:

http://www.sphere.univ-paris-diderot.fr/spip.php?rubrique126&lang=fr
PROJET PHILOSOPHIE DE LA GRAVITATION QUANTIQUE CANONIQUE
Projet de l'ERC (European Research Council) porté par Gabriel Catren (Principal Investigator).
"This research proposal addresses from a philosophical perspective one of the most important unsolved problem of theoretical physics, namely the formulation of a quantum theory of gravity. Quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity - i.e. general relativity - are the two main revolutions of 20th century physics. These theories have radically challenged and modified our conceptions about time, space, motion, matter and causality. However, the formulation of an unanimously accepted and experimentally tested quantum theory of gravity capable of harmonizing these new insights in a consistent synthesis remains - since 1930s - an open problem. (...) On the one hand, general relativity is a turning point in an old debate about the nature of space, time and motion which includes Descartes' theory of relative motion, the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, Kantian conception of space and time as a priori conditions of human sensibility and Mach's criticism of Newtonian absolute space and time. On the other hand, quantum mechanics constitutes a groundbreaking landmark in the history of the scientific and philosophical attempts to define the formal determinations (or "categories") of generic physical systems, like for instance the "categories" of substance (and identity over time), causality (and predictability), experimental observability, predication (and logic), objectivity of knowledge (and its relation to the notions of symmetry and invariance), etc. For these different reasons, the research programs in quantum gravity engage foundational questions in which physics and philosophy are necessarily entangled."

The main "turning point" is special, not general, relativity. It gave birth to Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic offspring of his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, that even Einsteinians are trying to get rid of now.

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 3:12:50 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The problem of incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum
> mechanics will never be solved by the scientific establishment

Another dishonest and completely false assertion.

> - in its unsolved state this problem has been a money-spinner for both
> physicists and philosophers for a very long time:

How many physicists has Puerile Pentcho seen driving around in Maseatis?
He's just jealous because he can't get a job while he's living in his
rubber room.

> The main "turning point" is special, not general, relativity. It gave
> birth to Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic offspring of his 1905 false

> constant->speed-of-light postulate, that even Einsteinians are trying

> to get rid of now.
>
> Pentcho Valev

Prevaricating Pentcho's Preposterous Polemic is a tiresome regurgitation
of a diseased brain. Masurements of the SoL refute his sordid nonsense,
which is why he will never be released from the asylum.

Gary

[kefischer]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The problem of incompatibility of Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics
>will never be solved by the scientific establishment - in its unsolved state this
>problem has been a money-spinner for both physicists and philosophers for
>a very long time:

There is no problem, GR space-time geometry
is correct in describing motion in space, completely
compatible with a close range quantum interaction
between the quark level and the molecule level.

The Divergent Matter model is the quantum
theory outline waiting to be formalized, producing
the impression of a long range geometric field.

No particles are needed outside matter
itself [for gravity], the number of particles within
each material object determines the mass and
the inertia and the accelerated expansion of
matter (in the Divergent Matter model).

>http://www.sphere.univ-paris-diderot.fr/spip.php?rubrique126&lang=fr
> PROJET PHILOSOPHIE DE LA GRAVITATION QUANTIQUE CANONIQUE
> Projet de l'ERC (European Research Council) porté par Gabriel Catren
>(Principal Investigator).
> "This research proposal addresses from a philosophical perspective one
>of the most important unsolved problem of theoretical physics, namely
>the formulation of a quantum theory of gravity."

They haven't heard of Divergent Matter.

>Quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity - i.e. general relativity -
>are the two main revolutions of 20th century physics.
>These theories have radically challenged and modified our conceptions
>about time, space, motion, matter and causality.
> However, the formulation of an unanimously accepted and experimentally
>tested quantum theory of gravity capable of harmonizing these new insights
>in a consistent synthesis remains - since 1930s - an open problem. (...)

It will take quite a bit of time for them to
understand all about Divergent Matter, and a
lot longer to accept the radical nature of the
expansion of matter.

>On the one hand, general relativity is a turning point in an old debate about
>the nature of space, time and motion which includes Descartes' theory of
>relative motion, the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, Kantian conception
>of space and time as a priori conditions of human sensibility and Mach's
>criticism of Newtonian absolute space and time.

And confirmed by most experiments.

>On the other hand, quantum mechanics constitutes a groundbreaking
>landmark in the history of the scientific and philosophical attempts to
>define the formal determinations (or "categories") of generic physical
>systems, like for instance the "categories" of substance (and identity
>over time), causality (and predictability), experimental observability,
>predication (and logic), objectivity of knowledge (and its relation to
>the notions of symmetry and invariance), etc.
>For these different reasons, the research programs in quantum gravity
>engage foundational questions in which physics and philosophy are
>necessarily entangled."

Not if the nonsense of long range particles
or force theories are abandoned.

All physical interactions are either, close
range, local, "contact" interactions, or they are
electromagnetic [not gravitational].

>The main "turning point" is special, not general, relativity.

It was an early recognition that distances
and the time interval were not Euclidean and
as treated by the old classical ideas of prior
times.


>it gave birth to Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic offspring of his

>905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, that even
>Einsteinians are trying to get rid of now.
>
>Pentcho Valev

Valev is imagining things, nobody is trying
"to get rid of" anything.

Valev distorts, perverts, twists, and
selectively truncates his quotes in order
to make an underhanded argument of
his insane obsession with the most
tested and confirmed formal theory
of gravitation that ever existed.

There will be people that try to
"get rid of" Divergent Matter, because
it is radical and bizarre, and because
it will require learning new and more
difficult physical interactions in a new
physics (of accelerated expansion of
matter and the monotonous slowing
of time).

But General Relativity is as solid
as a rock.