Einstein Unmasked by His Collaborator
Pentcho Valev
principle of the variability of the speed of light (the c+v principle)
was correct. His collaborator, Banesh Hoffmann, writes (the English
text can be found in Chapter 5 in
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486406768.html ):
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136789331.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> It seems that Einstein knew from the very beginning that Newton's
> principle of the variability of the speed of light (the c+v principle)
> was correct.
I agree, that this is indeed what must seem to an imbecile
like yourself, who ignores the differences between
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a real poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
Mark Martin
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> - kneeling down and bending over,
> - a real poncho and a Sears poncho,
Dirk, you have caused me to laugh hard!
-Mark Martin
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1136826881....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Actually, there are three things that smell like fish...
Dirk Vdm
hanson
news:1136826881....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> - kneeling down and bending over,
>> - a real poncho and a Sears poncho,
>
[Mark]
> Dirk, you have caused me to laugh hard!
> -Mark Martin
>
ahahaha... yeah, exactly. These are the obsessions
of Dirk while does his own *immoortel* fumbles even
before he announced that he was the third kacksacker.
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... AHAHAHAHA....
ahaha... ahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
Joe Fischer
Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
Many people are too dense to see the difference
between the classical equivalence principle of equality
of gravitational mass and inertial mass.
In order to understand the fact that there is no
"gravitational mass", outside Newtonian gravitation,
the logic that represents Einstein's Principle of
Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
must be appreciated.
A principle that requires that the Newtonian
term _must_ be identical to inertial mass quantiatively,
because it could not be anything else, is far superior
to just admitting that the two are equal.
Newtonians may have a hard time appreciating
the difference in concepts, because to do so requires
accepting that freefall _is_ inertial motion.
For some people this difference is paramount,
it simplifies physics to an extent never thought of
before Einstein. But for people who can't even
get Special Relativity straight, it is useless to even
try to understand why the complexity of Newtonian
concepts are very unsatisfactory, even though the
math is easy.
The very concept of attractive forces being
involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
concepts.
Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
holds back any advances in physics.
But go ahead, continue to show how wrong and
how biased you are, even the willingness to belittle
the work that many thousands of people really believe
is shows a lot about your character and that of the
others that do the same.
Joe Fischer
Koobee Wublee
"Joe Fischer" <efis...@1g1ou.com> wrote in message
news:pam6s1pqlk0brbtir...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Joke of the day.
>>Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>>
>>Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>>Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>
You just refuse to see that the emperor really does not have any clothes on.
Joe Fischer
>You just refuse to see that the emperor really does
>not have any clothes on.
And you can only repeat nonsense quotations,
rather than respond to the formal physics statements
I made about the Principle of Equivalence and
inertial motion freefall.
Joe Fischer
Sue...
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Joke of the day.
> >Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
> >
> >Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
> >Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>
> Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
>
> But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
> you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
>
> Many people are too dense to see the difference
> between the classical equivalence principle of equality
> of gravitational mass and inertial mass.
> In order to understand the fact that there is no
> "gravitational mass", outside Newtonian gravitation,
> the logic that represents Einstein's Principle of
> Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
> must be appreciated.
>
> A principle that requires that the Newtonian
> term _must_ be identical to inertial mass quantiatively,
> because it could not be anything else, is far superior
> to just admitting that the two are equal.
>
> Newtonians may have a hard time appreciating
> the difference in concepts, because to do so requires
> accepting that freefall _is_ inertial motion.
Inertial motion involves no force. If someone pulls
the chair from beneith you, you won't for long
ignore that the force formerly spreading your
butt cheeks is likely related to your
motion toward the earth's barycentre. :o)
>
> For some people this difference is paramount,
> it simplifies physics to an extent never thought of
> before Einstein. But for people who can't even
> get Special Relativity straight, it is useless to even
> try to understand why the complexity of Newtonian
> concepts are very unsatisfactory, even though
<<the math is easy. >>
Do show these folks how to save some eduDollars. :o)
<< The GRAPE-6 system is designed to calculate the
1/r2 force of gravity. At Indiana University, a GRAPE-6
board, with a peak processing capacity of one teraFLOPS,
is installed on a Pentium 4 Linux server named lyra.uits.
indiana.edu. With this system, the gravitational forces
on one million virtual particles can be calculated. >>
http://uits.iu.edu/scripts/ose.cgi?anaf.ose.help
>
> The very concept of attractive forces being
> involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
> physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
> concepts.
> Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
> could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
> holds back any advances in physics.
<< Having bounced off the mirror, the small kinetic
energy due to the vertical velocity of the neutrons was
exactly balanced by the [*]force[*] of gravity at varying
heights above the mirror. The neutrons' lack of charge
and long lifetime minimized the effect of forces other
than gravity. >>
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/1/9
Not to 'force' the issue... but I wonder how many decades
that experiment set back the advance of scientific
achievement.
Sue...
Harry
>
> >Joke of the day.
> >Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
> >
> >Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
> >Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep
meaning.
>
> Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
>
> But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
> you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
>
> Many people are too dense to see the difference
> between the classical equivalence principle of equality
> of gravitational mass and inertial mass.
> In order to understand the fact that there is no
> "gravitational mass", outside Newtonian gravitation,
> the logic that represents Einstein's Principle of
> Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
> must be appreciated.
>
> A principle that requires that the Newtonian
> term _must_ be identical to inertial mass quantiatively,
> because it could not be anything else, is far superior
> to just admitting that the two are equal.
>
> Newtonians may have a hard time appreciating
> the difference in concepts, because to do so requires
> accepting that freefall _is_ inertial motion.
Interesting thought! But not so hard for traditional Newtonians: using
Newton's straight line" motion instead of "inertial motion", leaves room for
flexibility of the concept of "inertial motion". Thus they only have to take
the view that inertial motion deviates from straight line motion in a
gravitational field.
> For some people this difference is paramount,
> it simplifies physics to an extent never thought of
> before Einstein. But for people who can't even
> get Special Relativity straight, it is useless to even
> try to understand why the complexity of Newtonian
> concepts are very unsatisfactory, even though the
> math is easy.
>
> The very concept of attractive forces being
> involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
> physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
> concepts.
> Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
> could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
> holds back any advances in physics.
And what is your view about electrostatic "forces"? Ideally they should go
too, or don't you think so?
Harald
donstoc...@yahoo.com
> involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
> physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
> concepts.
> Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
> could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
> holds back any advances in physics.
and 1 = 2.
Joe Fischer
Didn't you understand no math is required in this group.
Joe Fischer
Der alte Hexenmeister
news:1136895526.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Mon, "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Joke of the day.
>> >Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>> >
>> >Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>> >Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep
>> >meaning.
>>
>> Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
>>
>> But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
>> you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
What is there to understand about one man not knowing how to play dice
who makes up his own laws of Nature?
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics school
for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
"Einstein does not play dice." -- God.
Koobee Wublee
>>Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>>
>>Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>>Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>
> Yes, it shows...
Let's try this again.
The Principle of Equivalence suits no useful purpose. Geodesic equations
were developed before Einstein ever heard of Newton. "Entwurf" form of GR
did not go anywhere. GR of 1915 did not even address this principle. If
this principle were never discovered, there is no impact on any discipline
of physics.
donsto...@hotmail.com
**********************************
"And now, for all the world to see, we now take the mask off Einstein
and reveal him to be in reality:
POINCARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe Fischer
>"Joe Fischer" wrote
>>>Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>>>
>>>Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>>>Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>>
>> Yes, it shows (your character)...
>
>Let's try this again.
You are wasting your time, I know the Principle
of Equivalence better than any other person living,
I have studied it since the early 1950's when books
removed from shelves during WWII were replaced,
and I had originated the concept myself in ~1944.
>The Principle of Equivalence suits no useful purpose.
Saying that shows you know absolutely nothing
about General Relativity or it's history.
>Geodesic equations were developed before Einstein
>ever heard of Newton.
And have nothing to do with Einstein's Principle
of Equivalence.
> "Entwurf" form of GR did not go anywhere.
This is really comical, I have been reading Einstein
for 65 years, and never focused on the word before.
It seems that all the authors who attempt to
rewrite history have added their biased opinions and
prejudices to what they had simply read about in other
books, or worse yet, made up imaginary events and
fabricated facts without researching the subject.
I found a review of the book on the history
of the mc^2 equation, and found a statement that
Einstein "sent papers" to the journal, which he was
working as a _reviewer_ for, as if he was an unknown
to the publisher.
>GR of 1915 did not even address this principle.
Of course it did, and Einstein even wrote a paper
later to refute the claim by somebody that he had
abandoned the PoE.
Perhaps not all the attempts with Grossman were
as dependent on the PoE, but the PoE is essential to
the external gravitational "field" being a inertial "frame".
And objects in freefall being in inertial motion can
only occur if there is __N O__ "forces" acting, by a "field",
particles or a medium of any kind.
> If this principle were never discovered, there is no impact
>on any discipline of physics.
Einstein's Principle of Equivalence was the start of
a logical theory of gravitation, one that depends on surface
gravity being identical to acceleration, and that _allows_
objects in freefall to be in inertial motion.
You can argue all you want with your sophomore math,
it is totally irrelevant to the question.
If you really want to learn something about gravity,
read the last part of the 1907 paper on the situation of
relativity theory, that is where the PoE first surfaced.
And the 1911 paper then expanded on it and
described some possible experiments to test it.
The equations of motion in inertial frames are
not dependent on the PoE, but in classical physics,
Newtonian physics, the external gravitational field
is not an inertial frame.
Stop thinking of inertial frames as cubical
constructs of "space" or aether, they are not anything
physical, they are just as if they were "invisible lines"
on a drawing, usually represented by draftsmen as
faint dashed lines.
All of General Relativity can be represented by
imagining an "elevator shaft" from the surface upward,
and in that "empty space" objects either "fall" in inertial
motion, or the surface of the Earth accelerates up to
meet them. Take your choice.
The thing about the field equations is that the
volume of the imaginary elevator shaft has to flow
like an imaginary liquid flowing into a smaller and
smaller cross section of a rectangular pipe.
That is the only reason a complex equation
is needed. And this flow must be purely geometrical,
without any of the interactions of the falling objects
with the imaginary fluid or medium.
The problem with doing library research on a
subject without formal guidance is that the student
has to allow their imagination guide them and compete
with logic and factual truth along the way, and that
makes informal study very dangerous if a person stakes
their reputation and character on what they imagine
or add to the subject.
Joe Fischer
Koobee Wublee
>>>>Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>>>>
>>>>Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>>>>Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep
>>>>meaning.
>>>
>>> Yes, it shows (your character)...
>>
>>Let's try this again.
>
> You are wasting your time, I know the Principle
> of Equivalence better than any other person living,
> I have studied it since the early 1950's when books
> removed from shelves during WWII were replaced,
> and I had originated the concept myself in ~1944.
So, in 1944, you finally understood Newton's law of gravity as well. That
does not make you more of an expert in Principle of Equivalence which is
equivalent to Newton's law of gravity.
>>The Principle of Equivalence suits no useful purpose.
>
> Saying that shows you know absolutely nothing
> about General Relativity or it's history.
Please derive the field equations through the Principle of Equivalence,
then.
>>Geodesic equations were developed before Einstein
>>ever heard of Newton.
>
> And have nothing to do with Einstein's Principle
> of Equivalence.
That is exactly what I meant.
>> "Entwurf" form of GR did not go anywhere.
>
> This is really comical, I have been reading Einstein
> for 65 years, and never focused on the word before.
> It seems that all the authors who attempt to
> rewrite history have added their biased opinions and
> prejudices to what they had simply read about in other
> books, or worse yet, made up imaginary events and
> fabricated facts without researching the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Grossmann
You are the one trying to rewrite the history.
> I found a review of the book on the history
> of the mc^2 equation, and found a statement that
> Einstein "sent papers" to the journal, which he was
> working as a _reviewer_ for, as if he was an unknown
> to the publisher.
Good for you.
>>GR of 1915 did not even address this principle.
>
> Of course it did, and Einstein even wrote a paper
> later to refute the claim by somebody that he had
> abandoned the PoE.
Again, show me the math of how the derivation of field equations uses this
principle.
> Perhaps not all the attempts with Grossman were
> as dependent on the PoE, but the PoE is essential to
> the external gravitational "field" being a inertial "frame".
With Grossmann, Einstein was wasting his time day-dreaming about the joy of
sky-diving. That did not get anywhere. So, he fired Grossmann and seeked
the help of others at Goettingen. PoE is totally useless.
> And objects in freefall being in inertial motion can
> only occur if there is __N O__ "forces" acting, by a "field",
> particles or a medium of any kind.
Newtonian math has already shown this.
>> If this principle were never discovered, there is no impact
>>on any discipline of physics.
>
> Einstein's Principle of Equivalence was the start of
> a logical theory of gravitation, one that depends on surface
> gravity being identical to acceleration, and that _allows_
> objects in freefall to be in inertial motion.
As history indicates, it is a dead end. You are now attempting to change
the history.
> You can argue all you want with your sophomore math,
> it is totally irrelevant to the question.
>
> If you really want to learn something about gravity,
> read the last part of the 1907 paper on the situation of
> relativity theory, that is where the PoE first surfaced.
> And the 1911 paper then expanded on it and
> described some possible experiments to test it.
No thanks. I don't have to read about when Einstein started to learn about
Newton's law of graivity. And in 1911, he finally understood it.
> The equations of motion in inertial frames are
> not dependent on the PoE, but in classical physics,
> Newtonian physics, the external gravitational field
> is not an inertial frame.
In that case, you have to show how the math is different from inertial frame
to inert frame.
> Stop thinking of inertial frames as cubical
> constructs of "space" or aether, they are not anything
> physical, they are just as if they were "invisible lines"
> on a drawing, usually represented by draftsmen as
> faint dashed lines.
I am not. All frames should have the same laws of physics. Isn't that one
of Einstein's postulates? The only good one I am afraid.
> All of General Relativity can be represented by
> imagining an "elevator shaft" from the surface upward,
> and in that "empty space" objects either "fall" in inertial
> motion, or the surface of the Earth accelerates up to
> meet them. Take your choice.
> The thing about the field equations is that the
> volume of the imaginary elevator shaft has to flow
> like an imaginary liquid flowing into a smaller and
> smaller cross section of a rectangular pipe.
> That is the only reason a complex equation
> is needed. And this flow must be purely geometrical,
> without any of the interactions of the falling objects
> with the imaginary fluid or medium.
Show me the math.
> The problem with doing library research on a
> subject without formal guidance is that the student
> has to allow their imagination guide them and compete
> with logic and factual truth along the way, and that
> makes informal study very dangerous if a person stakes
> their reputation and character on what they imagine
> or add to the subject.
Listeining to your babbling without any math backing it up is like going to
a sermon. The math of PoE can be expplained with
m a = - G M m / r^2
Where
** a = acceleartion
** ...
If you know any history, you will find Newton came up with that more than
200 years before Einstein did. Again, you are the one rewriting the
history.
Joe Fischer
>"Joe Fischer" wrote
>>>>>>Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>>>>>
>>>>>Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>>>>>Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep
>>>>>meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it shows (your character)...
>>>
>>>Let's try this again.
>>
>> You are wasting your time, I know the Principle
>> of Equivalence better than any other person living,
>> I have studied it since the early 1950's when books
>> removed from shelves during WWII were replaced,
>> and I had originated the concept myself in ~1944.
>
>So, in 1944, you finally understood Newton's law of gravity as well.
Frankly, clown, I am not sure I had even heard of it
at that time. Maybe I had heard the name, but I don't
remember seeing the formula.
>That does not make you more of an expert in Principle
>of Equivalence which is
>equivalent to Newton's law of gravity.
Wrong. Before age 10, I fully realized how
much gravity and acceleration were alike, and that
it was impossible to tell the effects of one from those
of the other.
I didn't give it much thought until I went on an
amusement park ride in 1944 where a metal cage
rotated and acceleration (centrifugal force) held
the riders against the vertical "wall" in spite of gravity.
A simple thought "now what could be the cause
of gravity" returned the answer "surface gravity _is_
acceleration".
Field theory, field equations, even inertial motion
is not needed for surface gravity, all that is needed is
for the surface of the Earth to be accelerating upward. :-)
>>>The Principle of Equivalence suits no useful purpose.
>>
>> Saying that shows you know absolutely nothing
>> about General Relativity or it's history.
>
>Please derive the field equations through the Principle
>of Equivalence, then.
There are two aspects to the PoE, the inertial
motion part, and the surface gravity part.
It appears that Einstein went with the inertial
motion part, and the difficulty of making inertial motion
_cause_ changes in motion of free moving objects is
a real bummer, he had to resort to complex mathematics.
>>>Geodesic equations were developed before Einstein
>>>ever heard of Newton.
>>
>> And have nothing to do with Einstein's Principle
>> of Equivalence.
>
>That is exactly what I meant.
But they do modify inertial motion paths to conform
to some formula that resembles "field interaction".
The motion of objects in free motion in a better
theory of gravity must be much less complex, gravity
should not be an "interaction".
Gravity should definitely _not_ be an attractive
force, hence gravity should not be Newtonian.
>>> "Entwurf" form of GR did not go anywhere.
>>
>> This is really comical, I have been reading Einstein
>> for 65 years, and never focused on the word before.
>> It seems that all the authors who attempt to
>> rewrite history have added their biased opinions and
>> prejudices to what they had simply read about in other
>> books, or worse yet, made up imaginary events and
>> fabricated facts without researching the subject.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Grossmann
>
>You are the one trying to rewrite the history.
No, I am defending the formal approach chosen
by Einstein as the only one he could take.
And he did continue to think of the surface
accelerating upward, even though it may not be
evident in the math.
And some physicists still think about the surface
accelerating upward, the imaginary event horizon of
a black hole is best viewed as accelerating upward
and outward from the center of mass.
>> I found a review of the book on the history
>> of the mc^2 equation, and found a statement that
>> Einstein "sent papers" to the journal, which he was
>> working as a _reviewer_ for, as if he was an unknown
>> to the publisher.
>
>Good for you.
I think anybody that writes a book on the subject
should at least know the facts.
>>>GR of 1915 did not even address this principle.
>>
>> Of course it did, and Einstein even wrote a paper
>> later to refute the claim by somebody that he had
>> abandoned the PoE.
>
>Again, show me the math of how the derivation of field
>equations uses this principle.
The PoE is like a devil's advocate, it should be
implemented in a thought experiment both to check
concepts and to originate new concepts.
Motion in free space is not Newtonian, and this
is clearly illustrated in the treatment of a cloud of test
particles, either in gravity free space, or in the presence
of gravity.
>> Perhaps not all the attempts with Grossman were
>> as dependent on the PoE, but the PoE is essential to
>> the external gravitational "field" being a inertial "frame".
>
>With Grossmann, Einstein was wasting his time day-dreaming
> about the joy of sky-diving. That did not get anywhere.
It was probably Grossmann and Minkowski that
prompted Einstein to think less of the PoE and more
about abstract mathematics.
>So, he fired Grossmann and seeked
>the help of others at Goettingen. PoE is totally useless.
Many people do not see the importance of the PoE,
many do not even see the difference between Einstein's
PoE and the age old equivalence principle.
>> And objects in freefall being in inertial motion can
>> only occur if there is __N O__ "forces" acting, by a "field",
>> particles or a medium of any kind.
>
>Newtonian math has already shown this.
No, Newtonian math requires forces described
as a gravity field. How could an attractive field be
related to inertial motion freefall, you are obviously
not very discriminating about what inertial motion means.
>>> If this principle were never discovered, there is no impact
>>>on any discipline of physics.
>>
>> Einstein's Principle of Equivalence was the start of
>> a logical theory of gravitation, one that depends on surface
>> gravity being identical to acceleration, and that _allows_
>> objects in freefall to be in inertial motion.
>
>As history indicates, it is a dead end.
Nonsense, it will be the only thing that saves
and advances gravity theory.
> You are now attempting to change the history.
Read the 1907 and 1911 documents and I
will provide the reference where he denies the claim
that he abandoned the PoE in the final version of GR.
>> You can argue all you want with your sophomore math,
>> it is totally irrelevant to the question.
>>
>> If you really want to learn something about gravity,
>> read the last part of the 1907 paper on the situation of
>> relativity theory, that is where the PoE first surfaced.
>> And the 1911 paper then expanded on it and
>> described some possible experiments to test it.
>
>No thanks. I don't have to read about when Einstein
>started to learn about Newton's law of graivity.
No, but you do have to read them to learn about
G R A V I T Y .
> And in 1911, he finally understood it.
Gravity, yes, I think he probably understood
Newtonian gravitation early in school, if you look
at the class subjects listed on his transcripts, it
is amazing. Most high school graduates today
probably wouldn't even know what the words mean.
>> The equations of motion in inertial frames are
>> not dependent on the PoE, but in classical physics,
>> Newtonian physics, the external gravitational field
>> is not an inertial frame.
>
>In that case, you have to show how the math is different
>from inertial frame to inert frame.
That is what GR is for.
>> Stop thinking of inertial frames as cubical
>> constructs of "space" or aether, they are not anything
>> physical, they are just as if they were "invisible lines"
>> on a drawing, usually represented by draftsmen as
>> faint dashed lines.
>
>I am not. All frames should have the same laws of physics.
Of course, but the geometry of nature is not
Euclidean in the presence of gravity.
>Isn't that one
>of Einstein's postulates? The only good one I am afraid.
Cheer up, GR may be too difficult for you, but with
computers, maybe you can find a program to do the math.
>> All of General Relativity can be represented by
>> imagining an "elevator shaft" from the surface upward,
>> and in that "empty space" objects either "fall" in inertial
>> motion, or the surface of the Earth accelerates up to
>> meet them. Take your choice.
>> The thing about the field equations is that the
>> volume of the imaginary elevator shaft has to flow
>> like an imaginary liquid flowing into a smaller and
>> smaller cross section of a rectangular pipe.
>> That is the only reason a complex equation
>> is needed. And this flow must be purely geometrical,
>> without any of the interactions of the falling objects
>> with the imaginary fluid or medium.
>
>Show me the math.
You claim to be a mathematician, how about if
I show you the problem and you work it.
>> The problem with doing library research on a
>> subject without formal guidance is that the student
>> has to allow their imagination guide them and compete
>> with logic and factual truth along the way, and that
>> makes informal study very dangerous if a person stakes
>> their reputation and character on what they imagine
>> or add to the subject.
>
>Listeining to your babbling without any math backing it up is like going to
>a sermon. The math of PoE can be expplained with
>
>m a = - G M m / r^2
>
>Where
>
>** a = acceleartion
>** ...
Maybe going to more sermons would have given you
a better outlook on life and science.
>If you know any history, you will find Newton came up with
>that more than 200 years before Einstein did.
>Again, you are the one rewriting the history.
No, I am only saying "read the history" and filter
out the writings by those who try to better their image
by damaging the image of another person.
The PoE will come back, it is the only logical
thought in the whole process.
And there are two parts to the PoE, the external
gravitational field is only one part.
Joe Fischer
Harry
Mike
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Joke of the day.
> >Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
> >
> >Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
> >Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>
> Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
>
> But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
> you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
Do you think you understand it just because you accuse someone else of
the opposite?
>
> Many people are too dense to see the difference
> between the classical equivalence principle of equality
> of gravitational mass and inertial mass.
> In order to understand the fact that there is no
> "gravitational mass", outside Newtonian gravitation,
> the logic that represents Einstein's Principle of
> Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
> must be appreciated.
Spewing crap alert...
> A principle that requires that the Newtonian
> term _must_ be identical to inertial mass quantiatively,
> because it could not be anything else, is far superior
> to just admitting that the two are equal.
More non-sense crap. Possibility of substance abuse.
> Newtonians may have a hard time appreciating
> the difference in concepts, because to do so requires
> accepting that freefall _is_ inertial motion.
Only in 4-D spacetime stupid. But to accept that you must be able to
observe it, since, (I wonder if you know that), sceince rests on
empirical measurements. I don't know of one "Newtonian" who managed to
find himself in a 4-D spacetime and confirm your dilussions and
crackpot assesments.
Do you want to get a good feel of what free fall looks like?
hahahahahahahahaha It won't make any difference to you.
> For some people this difference is paramount,
> it simplifies physics to an extent never thought of
> before Einstein. But for people who can't even
> get Special Relativity straight, it is useless to even
> try to understand why the complexity of Newtonian
> concepts are very unsatisfactory, even though the
> math is easy.
>
The above statement contains three informal logical fallacies and one
formal logical fallacy, the type that stupid attorneys use in courts to
convince a drunk judge that their client did not steal the wallet of
the victim but the wallet was beamed in his pocket by Spock. Idiot.
> The very concept of attractive forces being
> involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
> physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
> concepts.
Th eonly thing that is damaging to physics and its progress is cranks
like you making unfounded claims about its nature based on crackpot
theories like GR.
> Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
> could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
> holds back any advances in physics.
Listen crank, the idea that free falling objects are accelerated by
forces naturally follows from the second law of Newton, which you do
not understand, neither Einstein did. If a change in the state of
motion requires a force to be applied, and in addition the second law
has withstand the empirical tests of science and time, then it is only
natual to extend this to motion caused by gravitational interaction and
theorize gravity forces.
This was a major breakthrough in science. The real hold back came when
one crank ("Dr" Al) wanted to steal the glory of Newton and masturbated
with the definitions calling free fall inertial motion.
GR is the most absurd theory, a real crackpot stuff, and in a few years
it will be history and not even mentioned in footnotes, the fate of the
vortex theory.
Nevertheless, you do not seem to understand GR anyway. Free fall is
inertial motion in GR only locally. What "locally" means is very
dubious. "Locally" usually means the region of space-time where
free-fall is inertial motion.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Mike
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Mon, "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >Joke of the day.
>> >Question: When was the Principle of Equivalence formalized?
>> >
>> >Answer: When Einstein finally understood Newton's law of gravity.
>> >Hey, folks. Don't laugh too much. This joke carries a very deep meaning.
>>
>> Yes, it shows just how biased and stupid one person can be.
>>
>> But why do you mention the Principle of Equivalence,
>> you still haven't understood Special Relativity.
>
>Do you think you understand it just because you accuse
>someone else of the opposite?
Opposite? If you can't keep up with the discussion,
ask your mommy what was said.
I take Bilge's word for it that KW does not do some
of the SR math correctly, Bilge has accelerator experience,
and Einstein's Principle of Equivalence is the principle that
says a room on the surface of Earth is identical to a room
accelerated in space far from other matter.
I hope that isn't too difficult for you.
>> Many people are too dense to see the difference
>> between the classical equivalence principle of equality
>> of gravitational mass and inertial mass.
>> In order to understand the fact that there is no
>> "gravitational mass", outside Newtonian gravitation,
>> the logic that represents Einstein's Principle of
>> Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
>> must be appreciated.
>
>Spewing crap alert...
If that is what you are going to spew, thanks for'
the warning.
>> A principle that requires that the Newtonian
>> term _must_ be identical to inertial mass quantiatively,
>> because it could not be anything else, is far superior
>> to just admitting that the two are equal.
>
>More non-sense crap. Possibility of substance abuse.
Read what Einstein said. Oh, sorry, you are
an anti-relativity nutcase, I forgot.
>> Newtonians may have a hard time appreciating
>> the difference in concepts, because to do so requires
>> accepting that freefall _is_ inertial motion.
>
>Only in 4-D spacetime stupid.
Like you know what 4-D spacetime is.
>But to accept that you must be able to
>observe it, since,
Accelerometers observe it every day.
If you turn an F-16 upside down on the ground,
the accelerometer will read 2 g's.
>(I wonder if you know that), sceince rests on
>empirical measurements.
Right, but your opinions are controlled by a biased,
facitious mind. And ll Newtonian measurements are
biased and frame dependent.
>I don't know of one "Newtonian" who managed to
>find himself in a 4-D spacetime and confirm your dilussions and
>crackpot assesments.
I don't know of one Newtonian/antirelativist that
ever knew what 4D spacetime is.
>Do you want to get a good feel of what free fall looks like?
>
>hahahahahahahahaha It won't make any difference to you.
Take a jump and let me know.
>> For some people this difference is paramount,
>> it simplifies physics to an extent never thought of
>> before Einstein. But for people who can't even
>> get Special Relativity straight, it is useless to even
>> try to understand why the complexity of Newtonian
>> concepts are very unsatisfactory, even though the
>> math is easy.
>
>The above statement contains three informal logical fallacies and one
>formal logical fallacy, the type that stupid attorneys use in courts to
>convince a drunk judge that their client did not steal the wallet of
>the victim but the wallet was beamed in his pocket by Spock. Idiot.
It probably isn't possible for an anti-relativist to
think clearly, biased agendas represent a closed mind.
>> The very concept of attractive forces being
>> involved in gravitation is very damaging to gravitational
>> physics, and "gravitational mass" is one of the confusing
>> concepts.
>
>Th eonly thing that is damaging to physics and its progress is cranks
>like you making unfounded claims about its nature based on crackpot
>theories like GR.
I don't base my claims on GR, but GR is a good
step in the right direction to begin a clear understanding
gravity and kinematics in it's presence.
>> Whatever gravity is, the idea that objects in freefall
>> could be accelerated by "forces" is so infantile that it
>> holds back any advances in physics.
>
>Listen crank, the idea that free falling objects are accelerated by
>forces naturally follows from the second law of Newton, which you do
>not understand,
And you accept Newtons laws as gospel?
>neither Einstein did.
If any of the nutcases here had one percent the
knowledge of Einstein, they would shutup and find
another role playing game chat room.
>If a change in the state of
>motion requires a force to be applied,
A change in apparent motion may not be a change
in motion. An accelerometer is the only good judge of
a change in motion, assuming a change in motion is
a departure from inertial motion.
Try to learn what inertial motion means, it is not
what Newton restricts it to.
>and in addition the second law
>has withstand the empirical tests of science and time, then it is only
>natual to extend this to motion caused by gravitational interaction and
>theorize gravity forces.
Only for biased minds. There are no forces
that could possibly do what gravity does.
>This was a major breakthrough in science.
No, it was a great tool for engineers to use, it was
a setback to gravitational physics.
>The real hold back came when
>one crank ("Dr" Al) wanted to steal the glory of Newton and masturbated
>with the definitions calling free fall inertial motion.
He knew what an accelerometer is and what it
reads in freefall.
Only a dummy would think that accelerometers
read correctly in some orientations and not in others.
>GR is the most absurd theory, a real crackpot stuff, and in a few years
>it will be history and not even mentioned in footnotes, the fate of the
>vortex theory.
Pleaseeeeeee hold you breath until it does.
>Nevertheless, you do not seem to understand GR anyway.
I have never claimed I do, I do understand gravity
fairly well though.
> Free fall is inertial motion in GR only locally.
Only because the results have to be translated
and mapped to Euclidean reference frames.
>What "locally" means is very dubious.
And you know exactly what it means?
>"Locally" usually means the region of space-time where
>free-fall is inertial motion.
>hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>Mike
The idiotic laugh is a sure sign of dementia.
Joe Fischer
Mike
Joe Fischer wrote:
[ssip]
>
> Wrong. Before age 10, I fully realized how
> much gravity and acceleration were alike, and that
> it was impossible to tell the effects of one from those
> of the other.
Good boy. Because gravity causes acceleration, as Newton showed long
time ago:
F = dp/dt = GMm'/r^2 (simple form of law of universal gravitation, m'
= grav. mass)
or
m dv/dt = GMm'/r^2 or dv/dt = GM/r^2
Whoever thinks that Einstein discovered the marvelous fact that gravity
and acceleration "are alike", is a stupid idiot and a crank. Just look
at the equation above.
All these stupid terms you mention are word games used to pass the
hidden agenda of GR which amongst other things is a purely geometrical
theory of gravitation. It attempts to refute:
1) Euclidean concepts. which are based common sense
2) Newton and Galileo, whose theories are based succesful inductive
generalizations
3) Lorentz and Poincare, two of the greatest minds.
and steal the fame of those people who were the real pioneers. The
history of science is full of attempts to plagiarize major discoveries
and that has happened to a large extent with some works of ancients but
in this case it was a total failure.
History cannot be rewritten, although holywood tries hard.
You are waisting your time, if that is your intention, although I think
you are just mislead.
Mike
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> Wrong. Before age 10, I fully realized how
>> much gravity and acceleration were alike, and that
>> it was impossible to tell the effects of one from those
>> of the other.
>
>Good boy. Because gravity causes acceleration,
No it doesn't, that is a biased view, based on
a biased obvservation.
Your biased viewpoint is "gravity is what pulls
things down", my viewpoint is "gravity is what I feel".
>as Newton showed long time ago:
Newton fabricated a formula to make gravity
conform to his mechanics, and his mechanics was
substantially based on the work of Galileo in his
study of gravity.
>F = dp/dt = GMm'/r^2 (simple form of law of
>universal gravitation, m' = grav. mass)
Inventing an imaginary attribute of mass is not
physics, Einstein corrected that by declaring the
Principle of Equivalence that produces the outcome
that gravitational mass is nothing but the inertial mass.
Some Newtonians are so brainwashed about
"force" that they use F when it even requires on or
two extra steps in calculations.
This extra work can be avoided by simply using
a for acceleration instead.
>or
>
>m dv/dt = GMm'/r^2 or dv/dt = GM/r^2
Which gives "space" an attribute of length,
width or depth.
A physicist likes to be able to work with things
that can be measured, space cannot be measured.
>Whoever thinks that Einstein discovered the marvelous fact that gravity
>and acceleration "are alike", is a stupid idiot and a crank. Just look
>at the equation above.
You look at them, you had to insert an imaginary
"force" acting in the first instance to get the same result
as eliminating the "gravitational mass' in the second instant.
The only thing the F is good for in the formula
is to perpetuate the Newtonian concept, call it
"continuing brainwashing".
>All these stupid terms you mention
The only stupid term are "force of gravity"
and "gravitational mass".
>are word games used to pass the
>hidden agenda of GR
Nonsense, a few liberal radicals with a bizarre
form of dementia think the entire physics community
is pushing a "hidden agenda".
The nutcases here are pathetic, arguing that
essentially all the many thousands of scientists are
either brainwashed or leading an agenda to promote
Einstein as a great scientist.
>which amongst other things is a purely geometrical
>theory of gravitation.
Exactly, which is the only thing the external
gravitational "field"' can be.
"Spacetime" is obviously an imaginary reference
system used to implement a mathematical treatment
of "observed" motion without the complicating use
of an inmaginary and fictituous "force" acting.
>It attempts to refute:
>1) Euclidean concepts. which are based common sense
Which have no validity whatsoever, space has
no attributes.
>2) Newton and Galileo, whose theories are based succesful inductive
>generalizations
Based only on biased observation, producing
a system of mechanics and gravitation that is simple
to work with, an engineer's dream, a physicist's
nightmare.
>3) Lorentz and Poincare, two of the greatest minds.
But not in the same class as Planck, Rutherford,
or Einstein.
>and steal the fame of those people who were the real pioneers.
"Saying "on the shoulders of giants" is not stealing
fame, it is a humble tribute to them.
>The
>history of science is full of attempts to plagiarize major discoveries
Nonsense, any scientist who might have tried
was surely shunned by all others.
>and that has happened to a large extent with some works
>of ancients but in this case it was a total failure.
You are hallucinating. Is there a reason
for this dementia, were you disappointed in not
getting something you think you deserved?
>History cannot be rewritten, although holywood tries hard.
A lot of confused minds are trying, for the
sole reason of trying to make themselves look
better than those they are willing to damage.
>You are waisting your time, if that is your intention, although I think
>you are just mislead.
>Mike
I am glad you said "think I am mislead", at least
you may have a chance to see that you might be wrong.
Joe Fischer
Mike
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 11 Jan "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >> Wrong. Before age 10, I fully realized how
> >> much gravity and acceleration were alike, and that
> >> it was impossible to tell the effects of one from those
> >> of the other.
> >
> >Good boy. Because gravity causes acceleration,
>
> No it doesn't, that is a biased view, based on
> a biased obvservation.
>
> Your biased viewpoint is "gravity is what pulls
> things down", my viewpoint is "gravity is what I feel".
Nobody cares what you feel. More importantly, nobody can feel what you
feel. When you are in dentst's office, nobody else can feel your pain.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501051
Mike
[snip rest of apologetic talk]
donsto...@hotmail.com
**********************************
"And now, for all the world to see, we now take the mask off Einstein
and reveal him to be in reality:
Herman Q. Farkheiser of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, USA
oriel36
When you were stuck to that wall and spinning around did it ever occur
to you that the thing was shaped as a cyclinder ?.Maybe all that
spinning rattled your brain or centrifugally sent common sense out of
your skull.
The last time I looked, the Earth was shaped like a sphere and this
year I will give you the details of why the dynamics of the Earth's
mantle generates the deviation from a perfect sphere.Hint - it is due
to uni-directional differential rotation bands like the one observed on
the Sun -
Joe Fischer
>Joe
> When you were stuck to that wall and spinning around did it ever occur
>to you that the thing was shaped as a cyclinder ?
Did I mention if I was inside the cylinder, or outside it?
>Maybe all that spinning rattled your brain or
>centrifugally sent common sense out of your skull.
No, that happened when I fell down and hit
my head on the sidewalk.
>The last time I looked, the Earth was shaped like a sphere and this
>year I will give you the details of why the dynamics of the Earth's
>mantle generates the deviation from a perfect sphere.Hint - it is due
>to uni-directional differential rotation bands like the one observed on
>the Sun -
>
>http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
You mean it isn't because of the spinning?
The new gravity anomaly where the earthquake
was that caused the 2004 tsunami runs north and south,
doesn't that go against your theory?
Joe Fischer
oriel36
Here is a picture of the great wall of death/time dilation experiment
-
http://www.pyke-eye.com/a/icrts/wall-of-death.jpg
As the crowd watched, the person and the car became younger and younger
until the car became a pram and the driver developed childlike
characteristics such as drooling out that acceleration looks like
gravity.