You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
"The relativity effect in planetary motions" by Clemence says the advance of Mercury's perihelion is calculated using "dimensionless numbers." I wonder what you all (especially Roger) think of that? I think this must be like dividing by zero or lying with statistics.
Paul Alsing
unread,
May 30, 2024, 1:21:29 AMMay 30
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
Just another relativity crank without a lick of evidence... ignore him...
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
unread,
May 30, 2024, 4:32:25 AMMay 30
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
Relativity does not explain Mercury's perihelion advance because it does not assign a physical effect to using the speed of light in the equations. It becomes a huge free variable to crunch and throw out. Newtonian is sufficient to explain the perihelion once oblateness, axial rotation, and the latest data are employed.
Thanks for the link.
Laurence Clark Crossen
unread,
May 30, 2024, 1:47:05 PMMay 30
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
Fortunately no profound knowledge of physics is required to know relativity is a pseudoscience. For example, curved space is purely illogical nonsense involving reification fallacy as does the sort of non-Euclidean geometry involved in relativity. Non-Euclidean geometry is legitimate to describe surfaces other than planes such as spheres and saddles. It is not legitimate science when it reifies space.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Laurence Clark Crossen, Relativity skeptics
Exactly.
To some people - they look at relativity and realise its nonsense. Then when it comes to claim by its believers that it conforms to experiments - that just means those experiments are being understood by nonsense.
While for those who believe in relativity and don't see it is nonsense - it is a mystery why they don't see it is nonsense. One possibility is - they are just trying to appear clever by pretending it is not nonsense because of the publicity that happened in 1919 that if you believe it then you are deemed clever.
Sent: Thursday, May 30th 2024, 18:59 Subject: Re: "dimensionless numbers" As you have correctly asked, "what if it's not really hard to understand" but is actually incorrect for obvious reasons.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
Yes, the followers are just as phony as Einstein. They are pretending to be intelligent and doing a bad job of it. Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether when the only purpose of the LT was to save the ether from the null result. This proves he did not understand at all. How could he have thought of the photoelectric effect?
r.j.an...@btinternet.com
unread,
May 30, 2024, 3:45:50 PMMay 30
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Laurence Clark Crossen, Relativity skeptics
His wife was working in the lab of Lenard. Wiki says of Lenard -> One of his most important contributions was the experimental realization of the photoelectric effect.
Sent: Thursday, May 30th 2024, 19:43 Subject: Re: Re: "dimensionless numbers" Yes, the followers are just as phony as Einstein. They are pretending to be intelligent and doing a bad job of it. Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether when the only purpose of the LT was to save the ether from the null result. This proves he did not understand at all. How could he have thought of the photoelectric effect?
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
I don't have any confidence in the decision of a committee that gave Nobel's to Arafat, Obama and Einstein. That is truly blundering. Arafat was a terrorist who hated Jews. Obama had done nothing to earn it, same as Einstein.
Sent: Thursday, May 30th 2024, 00:49 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: "dimensionless numbers" She starts right off with a mad ad hominem attack on Lenard. The truth is the other way around.
Sent: Friday, May 31st 2024, 03:25 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: "dimensionless numbers" According to the video Einstein frequently mentioned Lenard in his work, contrary to plagiarism claims.
Click here to set an alert to when our live feed starts!
This Saturday, June 1, 2024: Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Paper Does Not Make Sense
With Roger Anderton
It is said that Einstein's relativity is difficult to understand - but what if instead it does not really make sense? Already in previous anti-relativity sessions looked at the math of Einstein's 1905 special relativity and tried to make sense of it. Now looking at what Einstein says in that paper and trying to make sense of it based on Bruce Nappi's annotated copy of that paper.
How to Join In
All you need is a desktop, smartphone or tablet and the following URLs to participate.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Relativity skeptics
Not dealing with this Saturday-
But one of the areas that does not make sense with what relativity believers believe is the ether-
Einstein 1905 seems to discard ether
Einstein 1920 seems to bring ether back
Relativity believers ususally say that there is no ether and cite authority of Einstein.
But relativity believers do not explain how that connects with Einstein says - he seems to say opposite to what they say he says.
Ether means light medium; light is a wave so needs medium; relativity believers claim light is a wave without a medium- that does not make sense; and relativity believers fail to explain how it can make sense. So, relativity believers just want to believe things that do not make sense.
