What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
GSS
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]
It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
(a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.
(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.
(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.
(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.
However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?
Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.
1. Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.
This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.
This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/spacetime_demystified.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Pentcho Valev
Establishment" easily criticizes the consequences of the theory - e.g.
the block universe is almost universally rejected. At the same time
the trivial deductive rule:
"unacceptable consequences, therefore false axioms"
is, to use Orwell's terminology, an "unrule" - it does not exist, it
has never existed. There will be a conference in a few months and the
announcement sounds quite heretical:
http://wwww.uaeu.ac.ae/conferences/time/english/theme_and_objectives.asp
"Time is a fundamental concept that eludes rigorous definition and
description and proves elusive when studied by scientists. The more we
understand the realities of time, the more it becomes obscure and
unrealizable. Modern theories in physics and cosmology dramatically
alter our views of time, but instead of clarifying the classical views
of time, modern theories add complexity to the notion of time through
the questions and paradoxes arising from the introduction of concepts
such as time travel, negative time and curved time."
Do you think the possible falsehood of the postulates of "modern
theories in physics" will be discusssed at this conference? It will
not even be hinted at.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16de4fba-a77c-401f...@14g2000prv.googlegroups.com...
| Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
| developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
| an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
| of years even in the modern age of instant communications?
Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.
Why the
| collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
| Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
| of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
| Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
| resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
| 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
| fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
|
That's what I mean. In your ignorance you are sustaining the mistaken
belief that Einstein is responsible for length contraction whereas his
equations indicate length EXPANSION. And there is nothing wrong
with a moving frame of reference, any fool riding in a car is at rest
relative to the windscreen and moving relative to the road, it isn't
magic. If it is fictitious then every length, symbol or TV image is
fictitious, from this text which has no ink on your screen to money
which only has value for trade. Discs of metal, gold bars and
diamonds have no survival value, they cannot be eaten. And all
diamonds do is refract light, making pretty colours, otherwise they
are just another rock folly.
| Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
| "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
| Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
|
As I said, cash incentives. New Scientist is profitable magazine.
| [Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
| more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
| included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
| Einstein's opponents?
ME!
Why not? Ptolemy's epicycles lasted 1400 years. The Neolithic Egyptian
pyramid follies are much older.
It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.
You've added nothing useful, made no new discovery.
You have some utterly religious bullshit about the "permittivity
of free space" based on your own faith. YOU are adding to the
mystique.
Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bullshit, thick
and rich.
--Androcles
hanson
>
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.September.2011> wrote:
It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.
>
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
and rich.
--Androcles
>
>
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
jacob navia
Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment
May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.
Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).
"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
see
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
What do you have to say to that mister?
Pentcho Valev
That nowadays the experimental confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory are glorious and absolutely honest. Initially they were only
glorious:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."
http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN
KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS'
MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY
A FACTOR OF FOUR."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
jim
Well, it just merely proves once again that the only thing
Theoretical Physicists
know about space, time, computers, evolution, rockets, lasers.
plutonium, or robots
is Gauss.
Androcles
"jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
news:j3u1jo$89r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
| Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
|
| Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
|
mpc755
understanding aether has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether physically occupies three
dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Understanding aether has mass unifies GR and QM.
Aether displacement is the theory of everything.
Thomas Heger
> Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
> developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
> an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
> assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
> of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
> collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
> Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
> of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
> Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
> resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
> 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
> fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
I personally believe, that theoretical physics as we know it is
intentionally wrong. Better models are known, but not for the common
mortals. To train the students total nonsense was developed, that is
inconceivable complicated, but has no value whatsoever.
These 'theories' also disrupt occasional dissident movements and deviate
them into wrong tracks.
How to overcome this???? Well first trying to see, that this is
intentional. Nature cannot function like some of our most prominent
models suggest. And it is absolutely unwanted by the 'high-priests',
that laymen develop a valid description. This would make them
immediately unnecessary and people would start to ask, how these
billions were actually spent and what all these 'scientists' actually do.
On Arxiv.org there are half a million papers. This is an unbelievable
large number and nobody can ever read them. So it is completely useless
to have such a system, but it does exist. But why?? I assume: to create
a flood of nonsense.
It has to be this way, because nature should behave somehow with simple
mechanisms, hence we would need only a few papers with valid
descriptions - and the rest is wrong (nonsense). So 99,9% is wrong and
everybody knows this, except the common mortals.
Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
(smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
reject every dissident word.
TH
hanson
"mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main issue with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' is not
> understanding aether has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
> baryonic dark matter is aether.
>
>Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is
> physically displaced by matter.
>
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
>
> Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
>
>
So, put in the correct equation, Cavedon. Stop singing!
Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions.
Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math!
Get the Aether show on the road, guys.
jacob navia
> On Sep 3, 10:10 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
>>
>> Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
>>
>> Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:
>>
>> NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment
>>
>> May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
>> around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
>> Einstein's theory of gravity.
>>
>> Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
>> headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
>> Probe B (GP-B).
>>
>> "The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
>> relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
>> Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
>>
>> see
>>
>> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
>>
>> What do you have to say to that mister?
>
> That nowadays the experimental confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine
> Theory are glorious and absolutely honest. Initially they were only
> glorious:
>
And in the rest of your reply you do NOT even mention the experimental
result I cited. Nothing, not a word.
You are unable to argue it away. It is an experimental confirmation
of a theory that you say is wrong.
jacob navia
"Androcles" is unable to put forward any arguments, as
always. Just insults, polemic, whatever.
Androcles
| Le 03/09/11 22:21, Androcles a �crit :
Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
Here's an argument, you fucking imbecile, and you have no logical
answer, you can't read mathematics.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
9cg1ec...@mid.individual.net
> Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:
>> Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
>> developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
>> an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
>> assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
>> of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
>> collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
>> Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
>> of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
>> Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
>> resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
>> 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
>> fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
>
> I personally believe, that theoretical physics as we know it is
> intentionally wrong. Better models are known, but not for the common
> mortals.
Yes, that's why, when nobody is watching, we call it
The Great Cosmic Common Mortals Conspiracy.
Dirk Vdm
oriel36
> This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
> that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
> describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...
>
That was a very well written article by you however the real issue is
not what Einstein and his contemporaries did but rather what happened
in the late 17th century Royal Society England where the real issues
have to be dealt with,after all,there is a feedback loop between the
toxic strain of empiricism that arose with Newton and the attempts of
the guys in the early 20th century to deal with it as best they
could,unfortunately it meant creating a bigger can of worms centering
around absolute/relative time,space and motion.
You may assume that the work of Newton represents a natural
progression from Galileo back through Kepler and on the great work
that began with Copernicus however the format Newton used to center
his agenda based on making no distinction between the behavior of
objects at a human level and planetary dynamics does not just take
liberties with the geometrical language of astronomy but distorts it
to such a degree that the original insights are unrecognizable.It
would help if empiricists themselves were interested in what Isaac was
actually doing with those absolute/relative time,space and motion
definitions but the incentive doesn't seem to be there even though his
distortions are fairly matter of fact ones and the payoff for
physicists in many,many magnitudes more than retaining the structure
which asks too much of experimental sciences and astronomy.
Despite his obfuscations,intentional or not,Newton clarifies a
conception just long enough to shed light on everything that
follows,the chances are that first time readers either won't grasp the
offending passage or will run to Isaac's defense while this is merely
laying out the physical considerations which do not tally with the
original language which produced the idea of a rotating and orbiting
Earth -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton
It should be as offensive to an experimentalist as it is for an
astronomer as the antecedent empirical sciences never overreached with
the analogies as they applied to cause and effect drawn down from
planetary dynamics never mind trying to bump up experimental sciences
to planetary dynamics,solar system structure and cosmological
evolution.The empiricists prior to Newton were actually getting a lot
of work done and while much of it was later attributed to Newton,it
does not take away from the fact that what once was the start of a
really productive agenda to link cause and effect and apply it as
loose analogies between,say,planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects,that productive area disappeared when followers chained
themselves to Newton's concept which attempt to say too much with too
little information.An example of the productive nature of empiricism
before the all-sing,all-dancing agenda Isaac introduced can be found
in many of the letters that preceded Isaac's distortions -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA104&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&q&f=false
The upshot is that there will be no new revolutions nor anything
worthwhile that will contain the attention of the wider population
unless this is dealt with properly and while people may not care as
long as they are getting paid,it won't account for those people who
genuinely feel the loss of stature which is causing both empirical
sciences and astronomy to crumble like a train wreck happening in slow
motion.
> 2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
> Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
> theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
> spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
> spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
> spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
> continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
> a physical entity.
>
> This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
> belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
> "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
> physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
> to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
> The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
> 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
> tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
> 'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...
>
> GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
jacob navia
> "jacob navia"<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
> news:j3vc1o$410$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> | Le 03/09/11 22:21, Androcles a �crit :
> |> "jacob navia"<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
> |> news:j3u1jo$89r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> |> | Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
> |> |
> |> | Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
> |> |
> |> Problem is, you are an ignorant lying bigot and a dumbfuck.
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |
> | "Androcles" is unable to put forward any arguments, as
> | always. Just insults, polemic, whatever.
> |
> Shithead "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as always.
> Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
> Here's an argument, you fucking imbecile, and you have no logical
> answer, you can't read mathematics.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
OK, I went to that page and in the article *YOU* cite I can read:
<quote>
The previous Muon Storage Ring experiment at CERN reported a value of
the muon lifetime in flight for a relativistic factor of approx 12
which agreed within 1% with the predicted value obtained by applying
the above Einstein time dilation factor to the measured lifetime at
rest. Here we report separate measurements for mu+ and mu- with a factor
of 29.33, which are an order of magnitude more precise and which show
that the predictions of special relativity obtain ever under
accelerations as large as 10e18g and down to distances less than
10e-15cm.
<end quote>
In that article the scientists produce yet another experimental
confirmation of relativity.
My theory that you are just a crackpot is confirmed (again).
I can confidently predict that you will answer with even more
insults, confirming (again) my theory: you are just a crackpot.
Androcles
Bwhahahaha!
The mean life of a muon is 64 microseconds and NOBODY has measured
it to be any different. Here comes a muon, lifetime 64 usec.
SR say it should be 2.2 usec at rest, so it must be zipping along and
time dilated back up to 64 usec! SR proves SR!
You are fucking mad if you believe that shit.
You can't do the math anymore than the morons could in the paper I cited.
Asserting what they assert doesn't mean diddly squat, dumbfuck! You
didn't read what I wrote about it, did you, ya fucking imbecile?
Byron Forbes
>
> Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
>
> Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988#
Example 1 (contrary example)
I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. The point defined by where the pendulum disc is, all the way to
the left, say, of it's swing where it stops for a moment before swinging back, is the point coming straight toward us.
The light successively gets to me faster between these periods so I observe that clock to speed up.
Goodbye time dilation!
Example 2 (proper analysis)
Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.
I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant to any change in
the accelerated clock in comparison to the claimed dilation of Relativity due to the relative v.
The conditions of force and mass dictating both clock's periods has been the same, as per relativity's 1st
postulate, so 20 ticks of one clock is exactly the same as 20 tics of the other. Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates from one observer to the other but it is not. Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual. Yet some people claim there is no universal time, which is wrong.
Experiments claim to have measured relative velocity time dilation and all are fraudulent lies. Anyone that
understands that time dilation is an apparent thing rather than an actual thing knows that. All others are members of
the sci-fi community.
The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly, not
that it actually does. So any clocks in an experiment like this should exhibit no difference whatsoever once together
in the same FofR again, aside from the accelerations involved to move them away initially and then bring them back
together later.
How can an experiment measure a difference when both clocks are back in the same FofR when the difference was only
ever claimed to have been "apparent" (not real), due to light speed and geometry, in the first place?
Goodbye 2nd postulate and Lorentz/Einstein hack.
mpc755
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Frisbieinstein
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
Cavy wrote:
> > The main issue with the 'Mainstream Scientific
> Establishment' is not understanding aether
> has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
> > baryonic dark matter is aether.
> >Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is
> > physically displaced by matter.
>
> is it... A = m / L^3 ... or what?
>
Cavy wrote:
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> is it... m*v = A * sin(t) .... or what?
>
Cavy wrote:
> > Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
>
> is it... F / m = A / G ... or what?
>
> So, put in the correct equations, Cavedon. Stop singing!
> Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions.
> Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math!
> Get the Aether show on the road, guys.
>
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
<snip Cavy's sub-intellectual lamentations>
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Cavy, don't sneak away from the
issue. Stay with your fetish, the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
the equation that Einstein stole from Pretto, for
witch Einstein publicly apologized in 1907.
Now, don't weasel, but put in the correct equations
for the Aether, above, right where I gave you the
suggestion templates for it.
Be a physicist, not a romantic minnesinger Mikey!
mpc755
>
> the Aether, and make
> it acceptable.
> ... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
> L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
Matter is condensations of aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.
Aether and matter have mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
For example, when an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into
aether. The matter expands as it transitions to aether. The physical
effects this transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is
defined as E=mc^2.
GSS
> Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
>
> Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
>
observations made during practical experiments are announced as
claim to confirm Relativity, only make erroneous interpretations of
the observations to do so.
> Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:
>
> NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment
>
> May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
> around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
> Einstein's theory of gravity.
>
physical entity which can get physically curved and can form vortex
around earth. If so how can you justify this belief other than mere
indoctrination? Kindly study the paper, "Demystification of the
spacetime model of relativity" given below and then confirm if you
still believe that spacetime is a physical entity which can get
physically curved and can form vortex around earth.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/spacetime_demystified.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
> Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
> headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
> Probe B (GP-B).
>
> "The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
> relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
> Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
>
> see
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
>
> What do you have to say to that mister?
Kindly refer to GP-B STATUS UPDATE — May 4, 2011
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
"After 31 years of research and development, 10 years of flight
preparation, a 1.5 year flight mission and 5 years of data analysis,
our GP-B team has arrived at the final experimental results for this
landmark test of Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity."
"The table and diagram below show the individual gyroscope
results, ..."
Gyroscope #2 : Frame-Dragging Measurement -16.1±29.7 mas/yr
That is the values varying between -45.8 to +13.6
And these are interpreted to confirm the theoretically predicted value
of -39.2 mas/yr
What an experimental confirmation of GR !!!
GSS
hanson
... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
witch Einstein publicly apologized in 1907.
Now, don't weasel, but put in the correct equations
for the Aether, above, right where I gave you the
suggestion templates for it.
Be a physicist, not a romantic minnesinger Mikey!
>
(Mikey's Psalm Choir #755: His ode to the Aether)
Matter is condensations of aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.
Aether and matter have mass.
>
An Atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether.
===== Aether is defined as E=mc^2. ======
>
hanson wrote:
====== Now you blew it, Mickey! ======
You can go back to your cave now, Cavedon!
.... ahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA..
AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.....
rotchm
comments to the quoted.
> Example 1 (contrary example)
>
> I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. <SNIP...> Goodbye time dilation!
Pendulum clocks do not operate in inertial frames (devoid of grav.
field). Pendulum clocks work on earth because of the grav. field and
this the surface of the earth is non-inertial hence SR does not
apply, does not conclude.
> Example 2 (proper analysis)
>
> Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.
>
> I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
> Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
> back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
> with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant
Insignificant? Do the math. There will be a non-zero "de-synch" as
predicted by SR(+clock hypothesis) and as observed by actual
experiments.
> Most people think that time dilation
> means that time is actually passing at different rates
Yes, some people *interpret* it like that.
> Relativity itself
> states that this is "apparent", not actual.
No, Relativity does not state that. Some people state/call/interpret
it like that. Relativity simply gives you its predicted
VALUE(s); it gives you the values on the clocks and is independent of
how you call this.
> The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly,
Again, NO, the theory ( Relativity) does not make such claims. Some
authors simply *describe* it that way. 10 < 20 no matter if you call
this real, apparent, slow, fast, different rate etc.
GSS
2011> wrote:
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> |
> | 2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
> | Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
> | theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
> | spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
> | spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
> | spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
> | continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
> | a physical entity.
> |
> | This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
> | belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
> | "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
> | physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
> | to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
> | The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
> | 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
> | tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
> | 'graphical' template.
> |
> | GSS
> |http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
>
> You've added nothing useful, made no new discovery.
> You have some utterly religious bullshit about the "permittivity
> of free space" based on your own faith. YOU are adding to the
> mystique.
> Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
> 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
> correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
> Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bullshit, thick
> and rich.
> --Androcles
For hundreds of years???
Brad Guth
The mainstream status-quo specifically trains and hires FUD-masters,
and otherwise has an unlimited devout army of mostly public funded
brown-nosed clowns that always claim being Atheist that only happen to
act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, and otherwise they always claim
being politically independent when in fact they strictly follow the
money that has the fewest strings attached.
Therefore publishing whatever as offering any better interpretation or
that of a new or improved deductive formulated theory, simply doesn't
get noticed.
Outsiders are also systematically banished and/or excluded (aka
blackballed), as well as the mainstream goes out of its way in order
to discredit any possible threat to their mainstream status-quo.
Mafia, Hitler and Jesus/Semite freaks pretty much have to function as
a borg collective, because they each have little if anything else to
work with.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
GSS
> The situation is schizophrenic. The "Mainstream Scientific
> Establishment" easily criticizes the consequences of the theory - e.g.
> the block universe is almost universally rejected. At the same time
> the trivial deductive rule:
>
> "unacceptable consequences, therefore false axioms"
>
> is, to use Orwell's terminology, an "unrule" - it does not exist, it
> has never existed. There will be a conference in a few months and the
> announcement sounds quite heretical:
>
> http://wwww.uaeu.ac.ae/conferences/time/english/theme_and_objectives.asp
> "Time is a fundamental concept that eludes rigorous definition and
> description and proves elusive when studied by scientists. The more we
> understand the realities of time, the more it becomes obscure and
> unrealizable. Modern theories in physics and cosmology dramatically
> alter our views of time, but instead of clarifying the classical views
> of time, modern theories add complexity to the notion of time through
> the questions and paradoxes arising from the introduction of concepts
> such as time travel, negative time and curved time."
>
> Do you think the possible falsehood of the postulates of "modern
> theories in physics" will be discusssed at this conference? It will
> not even be hinted at.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
I think it is quite possible.
There is a perceptible wind of change.
Recently, my paper titled "Relativity: a pillar of modern physics or a
stumbling block" has been presented at one of the international
conferences held at San Diego, California United States. The detailed
paper is under publication in the conference proceedings. The abstract
of that paper is reproduced below.
Abstract: Currently, the theory of Relativity is being regarded as one
of the main pillars of Modern Physics, essentially due to its
perceived role in high energy physics, particle accelerators,
relativistic quantum mechanics, and cosmology. Since the founding
assumptions or postulates of Relativity and some of the resulting
consequences confound the logic and common sense, a growing number of
scientists are now questioning the validity of Relativity. The advent
of Relativity has also ruled out the existence of the 19th century
notion of ether medium or physical space as the container of physical
reality. Thereby, the Newtonian notions of absolute motion, absolute
time, and absolute reference frame have been replaced with the
Einsteinian notions of relative motion, relative time, and inertial
reference frames in relative motion. This relativity dominated
viewpoint has effectively abandoned any critical study or advanced
research in the detailed properties and processes of physical space
for advancement of Fundamental Physics. In this paper both special
theory of relativity and general relativity have been critically
examined for their current relevance and future potential. We find
that even though Relativity appears to be a major stumbling block in
the progress of Modern Physics, the issue needs to be finally settled
by a viable experiment [Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)] that can detect
absolute motion and establish a universal reference frame.
GSS
mpc755
The energy associated with matter evaporating into aether, which is
what occurs when an atomic bomb explodes, is represented by the
equation E=mc^2. Mass is conserved. The mass converted form matter to
aether. The physical effects this conversion has on the neighboring
Sam Wormley
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
About the Author
James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology, Department of
Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209
Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The
Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason, and
Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry (1997,
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). He can be reached by
e-mail at the following address: jl...@ircc.cc.fl.us
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
Androcles
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac5f2bc7-adee-4881...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
For hundreds of years???
===============================================
Yes (three exclamation marks !!!)
You are no scientist, you read somewhere that c = 1/sqrt(eps0 * mu0)
so you add it to your drool, dress it up it with "it is well-known" without
a single scrap of supporting evidence, passing it along to the next
generation so that they can repeat *YOUR* FUCKING BULLSHIT
while you prattle on about "collective wisdom of millions of scientists".
A bullshitter is a bullshitter because all his family and friends are
bullshitters and he was raised a bullshitter. THIS MEANS YOU!
Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.
You are doing it for the money, hoping for increased sales of your
bullshit book.
Marvin the Martian
Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide the
money are ignorant of science. The people who get the money are often*
not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on
investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion.
Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
money starve and end up working at McDonald's.
* Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining
funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a book
with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate network of
inter-related research.
As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but I
was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
material in school and never cheated in my entire life.
Marvin the Martian
"The rule of logic is frequently violated by pseudoscientists."
Hey Wormley! Have you figured out what a 'post hoc' fallacy is? What
about a bandwagon fallacy? Appeal to authority fallacy?
Just asking, because YOU USE THEM EVERY DAMNED POST YOU MAKE. Now you
have the chutzpa to post a url about logic and how pseudoscientist like
yourself use fallacies and bad logic.
mpc755
What is a crank?
Let's define a crank.
I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental to a
generally accepted theory.
Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity states,
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable".
It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone
who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.
Marvin the Martian
You "figured that out", huh?
> It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that anyone who
> insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.
We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank file,
and treat it with the respect it is due.
mpc755
It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.
Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".
I know this is very hard for you to understand, however, the above
means there is an ether in relativity.
If you insist there is no ether in relativity, which is fundamentally
the opposite of what Einstein stated, then you are a crank.
Marvin the Martian
Newsflash: Einstein didn't understand GR very well. Hilbert told him how
to solve the equations.
But I tend to not like people who intentionally take quotes out of
context.
"Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Which kinda put the lie to your idiot posting, huh?
Now, go troll somewhere else. Why not share your genius with
sci.chemistry. Why do all the asswipes have to come to sci.physics?
< snip intentional lies >
mpc755
Which is exactly what I am saying. Einstein said, "According to the
general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable." Now,
I realize this is impossible for you to understand, but this means
there is an ether in relativity.
Einstein goes on to define ponderable media as consisting of parts
which can be tracked through time. If you actually read the article
you would understand every time Einstein mentions motion with respect
to the ether it is defined as individual particles which can be
separately tracked through time. This is also the same definition of
ponderable media Einstein uses.
Einstein also removes from the ether its immobility. This means the
ether of relativity is mobile. The mobility of the ether of relativity
as defined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the
aether.
What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable", confuses you into thinking there isn't
an ether in relativity?
I correctly understand "According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable" means there is an ether in general
relativity.
Marvin the Martian
Asshole. I point out you took it out of context, and then you quote it
out of context AGAIN.
This is why I killfile clowns like you.
Mind you, I'm more than open minded towards Modified theories of gravity,
but idiots like you can't even state what's wrong, mathematically, with
GR.
micro...@hotmail.com
> Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
> developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
> an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
> assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
> collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
> Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
> of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
> Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
> resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
> 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
> fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
>
> "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
> Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
>
> more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
> included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
> 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
> factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
>
> (a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
> physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
> that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
>
> (b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
> invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
> founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
> depth.
>
> (c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
> practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.
>
> (d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
> expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
> such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
> any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.
>
> (e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
> contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
> maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
> established beliefs and dogmas.
>
> However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
> erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
> uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
> of many intellectuals?
>
> Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
>
> mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
> that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
> sustained by mistaken beliefs.
>
> 1. Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
> Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
> relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
> called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
> feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
> up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
> points on the surface of earth. With current technological
> advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
> computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
> Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
> shift in fundamental physics.
>
> This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
> that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
>
> 2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
> Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
> theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
> spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
> spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
> spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
> continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
> a physical entity.
>
> This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
> belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
> "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
> physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
> to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
> The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
> 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
> tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
> 'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...
>
> GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
Space and time are immaterial physicality; the fundamental backdrop of
primary aether for the closed 4D universe.
Mitchell Raemsch
Androcles
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:-fudnWh0yKvlTP7T...@giganews.com...
| Science requires an objective and utterly honest person.
|
That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
a spade a spade and a fuckwit a fuckwit, which upset the fuckwits.
| Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide the
| money are ignorant of science.
No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.
The people who get the money are often*
| not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on
| investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion.
|
| Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| money starve and end up working at McDonald's.
Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.
|
| * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
| researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
| investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining
| funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
| soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a book
| with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate network of
| inter-related research.
|
| As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but I
| was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
| other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
| material in school and never cheated in my entire life.
|
If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
paper goes in the waste bin.
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:-fudnWh0yKvlTP7T...@giganews.com... | Science requires
> an objective and utterly honest person. |
>
> That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
> a spade a spade and a fuckwit a fuckwit, which upset the fuckwits.
Ironically, I'm in a situation right now (and once again!) where honesty,
ethics and competence are not well regarded. :-D
> | Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide
> the | money are ignorant of science.
>
> No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
> elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.
My experience is that it is some guy in the government, often the
military. All in all, my experience has been that the military reviewers
are more tech savy than the company management, who's attitude is "I
don't know what the hell was in your paper, but the Air Force Guys loved
it, so you get funding."
> The people who get the money are often*
> | not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on |
> investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion. |
> | Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
> | money starve and end up working at McDonald's.
>
> Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.
I did, and you can't always be honest. 30 years ago I could, but not in
today's environment. They make a big deal about ethics in engineering,
and it's because it is so much CHEAPER to shave a little (some times a
hell of a lot!) off public safety here and there.
I'd elaborate, but the company's idea of "ethics" is not exposing their
unethical behavior.
> |
> | * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
> | researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
> | investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining |
> funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
> | soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a
> book | with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate
> network of | inter-related research.
> |
> | As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but
> I | was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
> | other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
> | material in school and never cheated in my entire life. |
> If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
> paper goes in the waste bin.
True, but the cheaters get the jobs and the money. Honest ethical guys
are a pain in the ass and make the bottom line smaller.
Serious. This last week I wouldn't sign off on the engineering paper
because it flatly was wrong, and some other engineer said he would, even
though there is a problem. He said it boldly and right to my face. He
said his odds of being caught are pretty damned small, and I was stupid
not to sign it because the company will just get him or someone else to
sign it if I won't. There is no shortage of people who will sign off bad
engineering. Management gives lip service to ethics - I'll get a lateral
promotion and will not be in a position to sign off on engineering soon.
And he's right. I expect I'll have that duty taken from me very soon.
There was on job I was training for 20 years ago, and they asked me about
the product. I said it violated federal regulations and I quoted the regs
chapter and verse and showed the design didn't even come close to meeting
it. I was out of that program from that moment on.
As you say, honesty and ethics are not endearing qualities in today's
culture. 50 years ago, yes. Now? No. The words they used were "career
limiting".
mpc755
That's the whole point. GR is correct when it relates to matter and
its connections with the aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
Are you implying Einstein was stating:
the state of that which does not exist is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of that which does not exist
in neighboring places?
Are you that delusional?
What Einstein was referring to is the state of the aether at every
place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of
the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the
aether.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
Androcles
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:25:28 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
| > news:-fudnWh0yKvlTP7T...@giganews.com... | Science requires
| > an objective and utterly honest person. |
| >
| > That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
| > a spade a spade and a fuckwit a fuckwit, which upset the fuckwits.
|
| Ironically, I'm in a situation right now (and once again!) where honesty,
| ethics and competence are not well regarded. :-D
That's normal behaviour, what's ironic about it? Few (on usenet) have
liked me for well over ten years but since they are dishonest, unethical
and incompetent, I'm not bothered by their emotional responses. I
use naughty words deliberately just to provoke them, and it succeeds.
It costs me nothing but their false friendship, which I do not seek..
| > | Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide
| > the | money are ignorant of science.
| >
| > No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
| > elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.
|
| My experience is that it is some guy in the government, often the
| military. All in all, my experience has been that the military reviewers
| are more tech savy than the company management, who's attitude is "I
| don't know what the hell was in your paper, but the Air Force Guys loved
| it, so you get funding."
The first purpose of the military is to kill people, that's what they train
for.
The second purpose is to defend territory against attack by opposing
militaries.
The third purpose is to attack other militaries to capture their territory.
The fourth purpose is to defend trade, so selling opium to the Chinese
in exchange for tea needs a gunboat up the Yangtse to put down the
Boxer rebellion or German U-boats attacking convoys need destroyers
to oppose them.
The fifth purpose of the military is to defend "the people" against
rebellion
by the people, so four students were shot dead at Kent State on Monday,
May 4, 1970 in the USA and Gaddafi is still alive in Libya in 2011.
The sixth purpose of the military is to march up and down in pretty clothes
looking tough and demonstrating their ability to follow orders.
And yes, I've supported the military as an engineer, always wondering
how much blood is indirectly on my hands. That's scary.
| > The people who get the money are often*
| > | not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on |
| > investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion. |
| > | Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| > | money starve and end up working at McDonald's.
| >
| > Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.
|
| I did, and you can't always be honest. 30 years ago I could, but not in
| today's environment. They make a big deal about ethics in engineering,
| and it's because it is so much CHEAPER to shave a little (some times a
| hell of a lot!) off public safety here and there.
Concorde crashed. Ok, the cause was debris on the runway, but I
helped build that plane. Two Harriers took off from the deck of HMS
Hermes in the Falklands and never came back. Nobody knows what
happened to them. I help build and install the flight simulator that
trained the pilots. Was there anything I could have done differently?
No, I did my best. Honesty, ethics and competence are still highly
regarded, by ME.
| I'd elaborate, but the company's idea of "ethics" is not exposing their
| unethical behavior.
That's your call. I'm still bound by the Official Secrets Act that I signed
up to many years ago so I do understand, although what I know is now
redundant. Harriers have been scrapped.
The time to start your own business is now. You no longer belong in the
work place environment, you've gotten older and wiser.
jacob navia
> "jacob navia"<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
> news:j3vjkq$rfe$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> | Le 04/09/11 10:29, Androcles a écrit :
> |> "jacob navia"<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
> |> news:j3vc1o$410$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> |> | Le 03/09/11 22:21, Androcles a écrit :
> |> |> "jacob navia"<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
> |> |> news:j3u1jo$89r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> |> |> | Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
> |> |> |
> |> |> | Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of
experiments.
> |> |> |
> |> |>
> |> |>
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> | "Androcles" is unable to put forward any arguments, as
> |> | always. Just insults, polemic, whatever.
> |> |
> |> Shithead "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as
> always.
> |> Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
> |> Here's an argument, you fucking imbecile, and you have no logical
> |> answer, you can't read mathematics.
> |> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
> |
> | OK, I went to that page and in the article *YOU* cite I can read:
> |
> |<quote>
> | The previous Muon Storage Ring experiment at CERN reported a value of
> | the muon lifetime in flight for a relativistic factor of approx 12
> | which agreed within 1% with the predicted value obtained by applying
> | the above Einstein time dilation factor to the measured lifetime at
> | rest. Here we report separate measurements for mu+ and mu- with a
factor
> | of 29.33, which are an order of magnitude more precise and which show
> | that the predictions of special relativity obtain ever under
> | accelerations as large as 10e18g and down to distances less than
> | 10e-15cm.
> |<end quote>
> |
> | In that article the scientists produce yet another experimental
> | confirmation of relativity.
>
> Bwhahahaha!
> The mean life of a muon is 64 microseconds and NOBODY has measured
> it to be any different.
Bwhahahaha! (as you say)
The rest mass of the muon can be derived from beta decay and it was done
so by Enrico Fermi quite a few years ago. There is a reference to that
in the article in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
You *should* carefully read the stuff you cite.
Another reference is in:
http://instructor.physics.lsa.umich.edu/adv-labs/Muon_Lifetime/MuonLifetime.pdf
page 2
Another source that gives the same equation is wikipedia
The value of the muon rest mass can be verified with the interactions
in pion decay, see:
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v20/i11/p2692_1 (1979)
> Shithead "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as
always.
> Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
yeah sure
jacob navia
> On Sep 4, 11:09 am, "hanson"<han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>
>> the Aether, and make
>> it acceptable.
>> ... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
>> L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
Mmmm Interesting.
Do you have any experimental evidence for this assertion?
If "condensation" means what it means in a normal language,
aether should be lighter than any matter, and composed of...
well...
WHAT?
What is this "aether" made of?
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
Sure sure. Do you have any experimental evidence of that?
How long should I cook matter so that it "evaporates" into aether?
1 second?
1 million years?
> E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.
>
> Aether and matter have mass.
>
If aether has mass, it must have some material. What is the aether made
of?
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
>
So, aether is energy, and mass evaporates into energy.
or not? Aether is "energy" in your newspeak?
Y.Porat
-------------------------
you ddint innovate much:
manythings you said above were climes before you
evn by me Y.Porat
for instance
i said it much shorter and bluntly
for instance:
''one of the greatest disasyers that happened to 'modern physics was
that dunb mathematicians that understand only mathematics
took over physics !!
physics is far of being only mathematics
moreover only current amthematics
can cope only very little with real physics problems
just a few days ago
i published here a short article called:
'not all particles can be defined by
mathematical formula ''
and i am in middle of explaing it
i claomed long ago that
CURVED SPACE TIME IS A HUGE WAIST OF HUMAN RESOURCES !
SPACE IS NOTHING
AND HAVE NO PROPERTIES EXCEPT
HOSTING MASS !!
insteadof that
i suggested the CIRCLON
abery basic particle that moves naturally
in curved paths
not because something is forcing it
but that is as 'it was born (a
new basic paradigm that has to repalce
curved space
2
i claimes the first time in history of physics that
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
that is aborting immediately the
W of Z particles
the only 3 or 4 Quarks with 90 percent mass
as builders of the Proton (Neutron )
i found and proved that the photon has
nonzero mass (about exp-90 Kilograms)
2
yet you have to be selective
SR (unlike GR !!) is right !!!
it is based on the fact that
as velocity becomes bigger and bigger
it becomes more difficult to add more velocity !!
TIME is not absolute:
you have no time without movement !!
so
time is nothing but relative comparison
of motion realtive to some
CHOSEN MOTION REFERENCE 11
iow
there is no 'absolute time !!!
and by that Einstein is right
including all that is acociated with movement !!!
3
i developed a new model of the
Atom and nucleus
much of it cannot be described and defined
only by only current mathematics !!!
copyrights of
Y.Porat
----------------------
so
''the devil is in the details
and you cant say that all modrn physics
is wrong !!
Androcles
Lemme see...
1) Idiot navia claims Androcles is unable to put forward any arguments.
2) then the fucking idiot navia COPIES text from Androcles' page as if
nobody else could read it.
3) Stupid fucking idiot navia then IGNORES Androcles' argument.
4) Deranged stupid fucking idiot navia now confuses mass with life span.
How much do you weigh, navia?
Oh, about 75 years, says deranged stupid fucking idiot navia....
If that doesn't confirm relativity is for raving lunatics like navia then
nothing will.
| > Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
|
| yeah sure
Just assertion, bullshit, whatever.
Get lost, navia, your are dead from the neck up. Go on, fuck off, you
imbecile.
mpc755
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
When you watch a video of an atomic bomb explosion you are witnessing
the physical effects matter converting to aether has on the
neighboring matter and aether. The physical effects are energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_oueK1OQYA
Aether is the base material of matter. Aether is the base material,
period.
Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
This can be interpret to mean it can not be known if ether consists of
particles or not.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."
Since aether is the base material and it can not be known if aether
consists of particles or not, there isn't anything aether is made of
besides aether itself.
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
hanson
>
Mental Patient Cavedon #755 "mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. Cavy, have you lost your memory now
and you forgot that it was you, Cavedon, who posted:
||| Cavedon said: "Aether is defined as E=mc^2".
>
So, Cavy, either your mental problems are worse then I
suspected, or you are a devious mother fucker, knowing
that you were talking shit, and now you try to place your
own turds onto someone else... ahahahahaha....That will
work as little as your idiotic claim works, when you
||| Cavedon said: "Aether is defined as E=mc^2".
>
Now, Cavy, since Marvin & Paul Draper have whupped
your fat ass with due diligence & proper vengeance, &
your only supporter seems to be kike Jacob Navia, who
is so stupid that he accusd Porat, the Israeli Zionist, to
be "Anti-Semitic"....
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
Cavy, let me guide you back onto the path of righteousness
again, & forgive you that you tried to be an intellectual whore.
>
In all likelihood, when you wrote in your preceding post:
you had in your mind the vision and speculation that in
Step 1: Matter converts to Energy as per E = mc^2... &
Step 2: (the Cavy step): that the gained Energy of step 1
then converts, per Cavy, into Aether per: A = E*c^2... or
"displaces it"... Is that what you are trying to say, Cavy,
but you just haven't found the right words for it so far?
mpc755
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
Byron Forbes
This is the story of democracy. You have no Lord/s.
Byron Forbes
>
> Just passing by, reading a few posts here and there. Here are a few
> comments to the quoted.
>
> > Example 1 (contrary example)
> >
> > I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. <SNIP...> Goodbye time dilation!
>
> Pendulum clocks do not operate in inertial frames (devoid of grav.
> field). Pendulum clocks work on earth because of the grav. field and
> this the surface of the earth is non-inertial hence SR does not
> apply, does not conclude.
>
hehehe........ummmmmmmmm.................good point.
But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring, whatever.
TD is still flushed.
>
> > Example 2 (proper analysis)
> >
> > Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.
> >
> > I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
> > Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
> > back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
> > with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant
>
> Insignificant? Do the math. There will be a non-zero "de-synch" as
> predicted by SR(+clock hypothesis) and as observed by actual
> experiments.
>
Obviously it is lost on you that we can maintain v for any period of time we like so as to make the 3 periods of
acceleration (away, back and slow down) insignificant.
The alleged TD due to v will totally overshadow the 3 acceleration bits.
>
> > Most people think that time dilation
> > means that time is actually passing at different rates
>
> Yes, some people *interpret* it like that.
>
> > Relativity itself
> > states that this is "apparent", not actual.
>
> No, Relativity does not state that. Some people state/call/interpret
> it like that. Relativity simply gives you its predicted
> VALUE(s); it gives you the values on the clocks and is independent of
> how you call this.
>
Oh golly, you must have missed it the first time. See here at the 11:40 mark -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988#
Here's 'stein's derivation for you. Simple Pythagoras Theorem.
>
> > The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly,
>
>
> Again, NO, the theory ( Relativity) does not make such claims. Some
> authors simply *describe* it that way. 10 < 20 no matter if you call
> this real, apparent, slow, fast, different rate etc.
Again, see the video.
Here's what I wrote -
"The conditions of force and mass dictating both clock's periods has been the same, as per relativity's 1st
postulate, so 20 ticks of one clock is exactly the same as 20 tics of the other. Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates from one observer to the other but it is not. Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual. Yet some people claim there is no universal time, which is wrong."
For "REAL" TD to hold, it needs to contradict the 1st postulate.
There is no such thing as TD - there is only absolute time as measured in our own FofR. Who cares about the way
time "appears" to pass somewhere else anyway?
All of this is the bullshit needed to make light leave origin at c and arrive at a relative destination at c
without slowing down/speeding up. We have no aether so we merely throw the Lorentz/Einstein Hack into the gaping void
known as the vacuum - pathetic. What a fool you need to be to blindly accept that without so much as a Spok eyebrow!
All bullshit.
Inertial
news:MPG.28cf72a82...@news.tpg.com.au...
>
> But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
> whatever.
> TD is still flushed.
Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a child?
Thomas Heger
> On Sep 3, 6:09 pm, Thomas Heger<ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:
>> Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
>> Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
>> and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
>> (smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
>> reject every dissident word.
>>
>> TH
>
> The mainstream status-quo specifically trains and hires FUD-masters,
> and otherwise has an unlimited devout army of mostly public funded
> brown-nosed clowns that always claim being Atheist that only happen to
> act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, and otherwise they always claim
> being politically independent when in fact they strictly follow the
> money that has the fewest strings attached.
>
> Therefore publishing whatever as offering any better interpretation or
> that of a new or improved deductive formulated theory, simply doesn't
> get noticed.
>
> Outsiders are also systematically banished and/or excluded (aka
> blackballed), as well as the mainstream goes out of its way in order
> to discredit any possible threat to their mainstream status-quo.
> Mafia, Hitler and Jesus/Semite freaks pretty much have to function as
> a borg collective, because they each have little if anything else to
> work with.
>
Science is important and should not be subject to political cabal. If
these people exist and somehow act like you say, than they do greater
harm to people than wars! Science is what develops all these little
goodies, from pharmacy to cell phones.
If any of these sciences is derailed for unethical reasons, than these
developments are not beneficial any more or do not happen at all. so
people don't get cured, because these cures were not developed. Possible
machines are still unknown, because somebody does not want them.
Personally I think, the so called 'Growing Earth' theory is correct.
Only - this subject seem to be buried very deep and nobody is allowed to
discuss it. But it is by no means justified to silence the outsiders,
because the subject seems to be important and has far reaching
implications. The method is to reject, insist on unplausible alternative
models, ignore evidence, deny critique, silence dissidents.
Even physical violence against critics seems possible, or application of
secret operations to discredit unwanted persons.
All this comes at a price: this is the loss of new ideas and
developments, because the unwanted thinkers than had to think about how
to escape from their 'Gulag' (prison, mental hospital, army unit, debt,
marriage, bread job ...) and not about new little goodies.
TH
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The judgement that Einstein was wrong is where science went wrong.
He ends up being right. Einstein's opponents will be seen to be wrong.
Byron Forbes
It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.
Since you are a fraud and have snipped what you don't like, I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.
You are an unashamed fan boy without a clue.
Byron Forbes
>
> The judgement that Einstein was wrong is where science went wrong.
> He ends up being right. Einstein's opponents will be seen to be wrong.
Will that be the way it "seems', "appears" or "is"?
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------
he was right about SR (E=m c^2 etc )
yet
he was not right about
curved space time!!
sapce is nothing
and has no properties except hosing mass
see the ''Circlon' idea
that has to come instead
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
GSS
> On 9/3/2011 11:38 AM, GSS wrote:
>> It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
>> assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
>> hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
>> intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
>> 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
>> factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
>
>> (a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
>> physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
>> that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
>
>> (b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
>> invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
>> founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
>> depth.
>
> century, it was relatively rare to consider concepts that were
> remarkably different than what had supported everyday experience. And so
> the expectation grew that it would always be this way. Unfortunately,
> right around that time is where we made instrumentational inroads to
> domains that showed spectacularly different behaviors from the everyday.
> This shook things up in a way that made a lot of people uncomfortable.
>
No, this is wrong interpretation of the situation.
Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.
Now what were the 'instrumentational inroads to domains' that
compelled Einstein to "establish by definition that the 'time'
required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires
to travel from B to A." I think the situation is more akin to the
famous tale of 'Emperor's New Clothes', where whoever opened his mouth
against the prevailing nonsense, gets immediately branded as a fool,
stupid, crank and what not.
Can you justify why such a nonsensical founding assumption of
Relativity has not been put to experimental test for the last more
than hundred years?
If I have suggested a doable experiment to test this very assumption,
why do you think this experiment should not be conducted by the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
GSS
> This wasn't the only instance of this, of course. The Copernican
> revolution, which indicated that the Earth was not the center of the
> universe, upset people for well over a century. Another example was the
> notion of heat, which exhibited flow, and so many thought that this
> REQUIRED that heat be a fluid substance; the idea of energy as a system
> *property* and not a "stuff" of some kind broke all sorts of fundamental
> premises under what physics was all about.
>
> What physicists have learned from the Copernican revolution, the
> Galilean revolution, the thermodynamic revolution, and then of course
> the discovery of the very small, the very large, and the very fast at
> the turn of the 20th century, was a very important lesson: do not hope
> to challenge fundamental assumptions of a theory based on continuity
> with previous conceptual models. That is a fool's errand. Rather, place
> your approval FIRST on the agreement with practical experiments, and
> then figure out how to embrace the conceptual foundations after.
Inertial
>In article <4e64cbd1$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
>relat...@rest.com says...
>>
>> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.28cf72a82...@news.tpg.com.au...
>> >
>> > But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
>> > whatever.
>> >.
>> > TD is still flushed.
>>
>> Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
>> dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
>> think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a
>> child?
>
>It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.
> Since you are a fraud
> and have snipped what you don't like,
> I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
> directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.
directly toward us. Thanks for proving you have no idea what it means. What
a joke you are. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Dirk Van de moortel
4e68c31b$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoDopplerIidiot.html
There's probably more to come.
Dirk Vdm
Byron Forbes
You dagos need to get some new tricks.
All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic.
Brad Guth
>
> GSS
>
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. Lose so
much as one card and everything comes falling down. Revising history
is also not an option, especially coming from an outsider like
yourself.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Sam Wormley
> The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.
How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
domains.
Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.
Aetherist
etc...
IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...
I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...
micro...@hotmail.com
If there are no complete theories yet it doesn't even matter.
There is no success in putting undone theories together now is there?
Brad Guth
Your pretentious notions of being an intelligent mainstream status-quo
parrot are noted, though I believe my house parrots (aka Love Birds)
are actually smarter and even a whole lot more trustworthy. At least
my parrots were never mainstream snookered and dumbfounded past the
point of no return, so they can't ever use that as an excuse.
All it takes is for one house card to get pulled, and then it's game
over, because you're all as guilty as any other for not having policed
your own kind.
Do you seriously believe our government and its many agencies (many of
them highly secretive, to the point of not knowing what some of their
own staff have been doing), are incapable of making mistakes or
pulling off any fast one?
Is there even an enforced policy or code of morality in government,
especially when getting reelected and/or job security w/benefits is
really all that matters?
Brad Guth
unified.
If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several
million highly compensated individuals have left to do?
Aetherist
There is another more serious issue however, that is, abuse of process.
If someone 'did' figure it all out AND it could lead to 'very bad things'
do ya'think the the goverment(s) would want it in the public domain?
Hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)
Bill Snyder
everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder
than posting insane, retarded horseshit on Usenet. Nope, if a
poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand
it, it must be a conspiracy.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I say it will take hundreds of millions!
Although someone could get there he would simply be judged on it.
It becomes a matter of accepting that science isn't willing to do.
People judge the truth especially the absolute kind because they are
not it.
For instance distance is curved. Even Einstein was not willing to go
there but it is the absolute truth.
jim
wrote:
Nobody is really waiting for jerks who only understand
GTR to figure out dark energy, since it's given that dark
energy will just be a modified lorentz tranform of a black hole.
Inertial
> So what is the relevance of it fool?
The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply an
example of Doppler effect
> It's all constant.
It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.
> You dagos need to get some new tricks.
> All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic.
No deflection. And you have no reputation, other than as a moron .. and I'm
not attacking that.
GSS
On Sep 10, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 11:42 AM, GSS wrote:
...
>
>> Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
>> (like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
>> remain synchronized.
>
> Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
> earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
>
Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC? Or perhaps you would like to put some
fictitious observer in the K' frame to observe and declare that the
two clocks are not synchronized to UTC. Similarly, will that
fictitious observer in K' frame also declare that all network system
clocks on Internet which were synchronized to UTC through NTP
procedure, are no longer synchronized to UTC reference clocks?
In your opinion, what does all this really imply, physically?
(a) Whenever the clocks C1, C2 and UTC reference clocks find that
they are being observed by the fictitious observer in K' frame, these
clocks will immediately change their pace and time to get 'out of
synchronization'.
(b) The clocks will keep ticking at their usual pace and retain their
synchronization to UTC, but will only 'appear' to be out of
synchronization to UTC when observed by the fictitious observer in K'
frame, due to the relative motion between UTC frame and the K' frame.
>
>>> 2. If you do measure physical processes in a reference frame in which
>>> the origin of the UTC system is moving and yet use time driven by UTC
>>> clocks, you will discover that none of the laws of physics are the same
>>> as they are on Earth. This is considered generally A Bad Thing.
>
>> This is utter bullshit!
>> Laws of physics cannot be influenced by the man-made reference frames.
>> For example, all particle interactions within the solar system will be
>> completely 'immune' to whatever reference frames you create to
>> represent the relevant parameters of such interacting particles.
>
> That's simply not true.
> Do you know how, for example, the laws of physics change in a rotation
> reference frame? Is this all new to you?
>
Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. Whereas the laws of Nature remain independent of
the reference frames, the form of mathematical equation representing
any law of physics may change with change in reference frame. We need
to distinguish between the *laws of Nature* which cannot be influenced
by the man-made constructs of reference frames and the *form of
mathematical equations* that represent such laws in the selected
reference frame.
The only specialty of the so called *Inertial* Reference Frames is
that the mathematical equations representing laws of physics will
contain identical inertial or acceleration terms when expressed in
different IRF in relative motion.
When a large group of mutually interacting matter particles can be
considered 'far removed' or isolated from other such groups, the
motion and interactions of such particles can be properly studied by
referring their positions and velocities to a 'Center of Mass' (CoM)
reference frame. Whether such particles experience linear, oscillatory
or rotational motion in their CoM reference frame, Newtons laws of
motion will always remain valid and applicable.
When such a large group of particles is undergoing rotational motion,
Newtons Laws of motion will remain valid and applicable whether we
refer it to a fixed reference frame or a rotating reference frame.
Only the form of mathematical equations representing these laws will
undergo change with the change in reference frame.
However, if we use a rotating reference frame to study the motion of a
group of particles which are not rotating with it, we will encounter
an 'apparent' motion of such particles; just as we observe an apparent
motion of the sun, moon and the stars in the sky from the rotating
frame of earth. Such an apparent or relative motion is fictitious
which cannot be used in any law of motion. Similarly, all observations
made from fictitious IRF in relative motion with respect to an
appropriate CoM reference frame, will be fictitious in respect of
those groups of particles which are not moving with that IRF.
>
> I'm fairly convinced you don't even know what the issues raised by
> relativity are.
>
In my opinion, the only issue concerning Relativity is its INVALIDITY
due to the wrong founding postulates, assumptions and arbitrary
definitions.
However, you are welcome to raise any other issue concerning
Relativity if you consider that important as well.
GSS
>>> You are proposing using a set of clocks tied to the earth's
>>> reference system. Why?
>
>> Because clocks cannot be influenced by man-made constructs of
>> reference frames.
>
> But they most certainly are.
>
>> A clock can be 'simultaneously' referred to or viewed from or can be
>> located in infinitely many hypothetical inertial reference frames. But
>> the clock is 'sensible' enough not to bother about any of those man-
>> made constructs and keeps 'ticking' at its usual rate!
>
Uncle Ben
theories in physics),
...
> However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
> uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
>
> Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
>
The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.
Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.
Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa!
Uncle Ben
Brad Guth
fusion energy research, is a perfectly good example of their not
allowing our public funded research out the front door, or out from
any doors (not even to our best allies).
Problem is, William Mook has documented and published a for real
fusion option that has already been demonstrated to work, and it's
really not even all that spendy or technically insurmountable on the
smaller scale for use as a fusion powered rocket or clean energy
alternative to nuclear reactors.
Brad Guth
technology advancements, allowing global wealth disparity to flourish,
plus depopulation and WW3 to happen, is noted.
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0b239aae-6345-46dd...@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
| theories in physics),
| ...
| > However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
| > erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
| > uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
| > of many intellectuals?
| >
| > Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
| >
| ...
|
| The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
| to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth,
Erroneous Babbling Bonehead doesn't even know what "confirmed" means!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Bill Snyder
Brad Guth
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Double ditto, right back at you.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
My, what a clever riposte!
PD
>
> On Sep 10, 9:46 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 11:42 AM, GSS wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
>>> (like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
>>> remain synchronized.
>>
>> Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
>> earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
>>
> Sure?
> Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
> earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
> If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
> an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
> longer synchronized to UTC?
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.
This poses an interesting problem.
manner that its expression is not bound to constructs of reference frame.
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0b239aae-6345-46dd...@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
if he were at rest, but because he takes the dog walkies he's lived to be
over 80 years old, thus proving time dilation and confirming special
relativity.
Particle accelerators always check the health and age of particles at rest
before accelerating them. Muons that live for 64 usec when moving
would, according to special relativity, only live for 2.2 usec when at
rest. So if a muon lives for 64 usec when moving at 0.99999999999c *,
that confirms special relativity.
There are many other ways to be a total shithead as Bonehead will
ably demonstrate.
Do not deny the existence of Santa Claus without visiting the North Pole!
* select as many 9s as needed to make gamma fit exactly.
Byron Forbes
> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
> news:MPG.28d6528f5...@news.tpg.com.au...
> > So what is the relevance of it fool?
>
> The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply an
> example of Doppler effect
>
> > It's all constant.
>
> It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
> giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.
>
Rightio then.
> > You dagos need to get some new tricks.
> > All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic.
>
> No deflection. And you have no reputation, other than as a moron .. and I'm
> not attacking that.
Byron Forbes
We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).
In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.
So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.
All TD experiments are clear frauds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
Einstein's attempt to patch this up with gravitational TD in 1907 is farcical. He was a liar!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
"Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time
dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] Both gravitational time dilation and special
relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks
flown in airplanes."
LIARS!
Dirk Van de moortel
> In article <l4WdnUUah7wPU_bT...@mchsi.com>,
> swor...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>> The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.
>>
>> How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
>> QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics,
>> Optics, etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in
>> their respective domains.
>>
>> Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.
>
>
> Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together
> at rest.
>
> We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to
> rest again alongside the other (a3).
>
> In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can
> be as long as we wish so as to make the effects of a1, a2 and a3 (all
> constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.
>
> So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
> that the other slowed down - ridiculous.
See http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
where "in between a1-a2" is the path between events [E] and [A],
and "in between a2-a3" is the path between events [A] and [R],
If you stay with the accelerated clock (from [E] to [R] via [A]),
you cannot stay in one inertial frame, whereas you stay with the
other clock (directly from [E] to [R]), you do stay in one inertial
frame. The result is what SR predicts, and what experiments
confirm.
> All TD experiments are clear frauds.
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
>
>In article <4e6c9b02$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
>relat...@rest.com says...
>>
>> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.28d6528f5...@news.tpg.com.au...
>> > So what is the relevance of it fool?
>>
>> The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply
>> an
>> example of Doppler effect
>>
>> > It's all constant.
>>
>> It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
>> giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.
>>
>
>Ok then, so you're on the record as saying light does not reach us any
>faster from something getting closer.
1) That has nothing to do with your argument that time dilation is refuted
by an example of Doppler shift.
2) I didn't say above anything like what you claim I am 'on the record' as
saying.
You really are a moron .. you can't read and comprehend the simplest of
statement.
Inertial
>In article <l4WdnUUah7wPU_bT...@mchsi.com>,
>swor...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> > The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.
>>
>> How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
>> QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
>> etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
>> domains.
>>
>> Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.
>
>
>Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at
>rest.
[snip repeated lies from Byron]
maxwell
experimental fact from a theory. Elephants are facts, what is your
theory about them?
PD
> In article <l4WdnUUah7wPU_bTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdn...@mchsi.com>, sworml...@gmail.com says...
>
>
> > On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> > > The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.
>
> > How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
> > QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
> > etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
> > domains.
>
> > Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.
>
> Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.
>
> We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).
>
> In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
> of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.
I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.
Uncle Ben
> - Show quoted text -
is true when you see a long-lived muon in your particle accelerator.
GSS
On Sep 12, 8:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 7:24 AM, GSS wrote:
...
>>>> Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
>>>> (like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
>>>> remain synchronized.
>
>>> Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
>>> earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
>
>> Sure?
>> Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
>> earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
>> If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
>> an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
>> longer synchronized to UTC?
>
> They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
> would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
> mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
> send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
> synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
> trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.
>
> This poses an interesting problem.
>
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]
The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.
Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.
As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
formulation.
Newton's Second Law of Motion states that the rate of change in
momentum of the body is directly proportional to the net force
applied.
This law is not bound to the constructs of reference frames. As
clearly explained above, the quantitative or mathematical expression
of this law may change its form with the change in reference frames,
simply because the quantified physical parameters (that constitute the
law) can change in different reference frames.
GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
PD
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find here:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.
>
> As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
> this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
> undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
> not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
> https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/Absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.
In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.
>
> This law is not bound to the constructs of reference frames.
> As
> clearly explained above, the quantitative or mathematical expression
> of this law may change its form with the change in reference frames,
> simply because the quantified physical parameters (that constitute the
> law) can change in different reference frames.
>
> GSS
> http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
Byron Forbes
> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
> news:MPG.28d885095...@news.tpg.com.au...
> >
> >In article <4e6c9b02$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >relat...@rest.com says...
> >>
> >> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.28d6528f5...@news.tpg.com.au...
> >> > So what is the relevance of it fool?
> >>
> >> The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply
> >> an
> >> example of Doppler effect
> >>
> >> > It's all constant.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
> >> giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.
> >>
> >
> >Ok then, so you're on the record as saying light does not reach us any
> >faster from something getting closer.
>
> 1) That has nothing to do with your argument that time dilation is refuted
> by an example of Doppler shift.
>
> 2) I didn't say above anything like what you claim I am 'on the record' as
> saying.
>
> You really are a moron .. you can't read and comprehend the simplest of
> statement.
Byron Forbes
Amazing that you cant see how stupid that argument is.
Are you suggesting that the hands on a clock quickly move during these acc phases? It's simply rubbish!
> > All TD experiments are clear frauds.
>
> Unless you are dumb, your ignorance can be cured.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Byron Forbes
> On Sep 12, 5:15 am, Byron Forbes <chocol...@caramel.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <l4WdnUUah7wPU_bTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdn...@mchsi.com>, sworml...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> > > > The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.
> >
> > > How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
> > > QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
> > > etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
> > > domains.
> >
> > > Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.
> >
> > Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.
> >
> > We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).
> >
> > In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
> > of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.
>
> This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
> that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
> simply not so, Byron.
>
> I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
> physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
> about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
> will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
> involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
> specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
> between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
> curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
> acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
> effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.
>
The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.
Walk us through how the clock ticks as it goes along.
You're an idiot!
Byron Forbes
hehehehehe. That's starting to do damage, isn't it! :)
Dirk Van de moortel
versus the non-inertiality of the other clock, but I guess it is too
difficult a concept for kids.
>
> Amazing that you cant see how stupid that argument is.
>
> Are you suggesting that the hands on a clock quickly move during
> these acc phases? It's simply rubbish!
the hands (and the entire clock) will get destroyed. The other clock
will not. And yes, for small values of v (slow) and longer acc
phases --compatible with every day life, such that the clock is not
destroyed in the process-- the hands on the clock will move slightly
slower during the turnaround phase, and, provided the effect is large
enough to be measured, the clock will show less elapsed time.
>
>
>>> All TD experiments are clear frauds.
>>
>> Unless you are dumb, your ignorance can be cured.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
>
> You are dumb and cannot be cured.
Never mind, your ignorance cannot be cured.
Dirk Vdm