THREE PROBLEMS FOR MATH AND SCIENCE (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon. Nor is it logical
that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. That 'fact' is
quite convenient for cosmologists, because it allows the supposed Big
Bang to progress through a super expansive stage--but without having to
conform to present laws of physics.
Where did we go wrong? Try Einstein... Where did Einstein go wrong?
Mainly he erred by blindly accepting the negative results of the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's many failings have, also,
been covered quite well in the other articles that I have posted this
year on sci.physics. The links to those are included at the end of
this.
A. A. Michelson knew precision optics better than anyone of his day.
He gave us diffraction gratings for controlling the wavelengths of
light passing through an instrument. He explained the rainbow of
colors observed in an oily film on water. He measured the meter to a
wavelength of light accuracy. And he measured the velocity of light
in air to an accuracy unrivaled to this day. However, Michelson was
never able figure out WHY the M-M experiment couldn't detect a
changing velocity of light...
Einstein was just a kid when M-M was performed, but a mentor of
Einstein, Lorentz, wished to explain the negative (failed) result of M-
M. Experiments with electrons and charged particles seemed to show
that those "hit a wall" as their velocities are pushed closer and
closer to velocity c. It seemed that the force needed to accelerate a
particle becomes infinite at velocity c. But such force is hardly
noticeable at the velocities normally encountered on Earth. Lorentz
said that the force increase is inversely proportional to (1-v^2/
c^2)^1/2. That divisor has values ranging from unity, "normal", to
zero at velocity c. Of course, when the divisor goes to zero, the
force increase goes to infinity... or hits-the-wall.
A big problem happened when Lorentz saw a parallel between the
increasing forces on charged particles and the M-M experiment.
Lorentz reasoned: Forces are required to accelerate anything, and the
inertial forces on the objects being accelerated can compress them.
So, he figured that the M-M apparatus, itself, would be compressed by
varying amounts because of the changing velocity vector as the
apparatus is rotated through 360 degrees. If such compression occurs,
the velocity of light might well be decreased, but because the
apparatus contracts, proportionately (Lorentz assumed.), then there
would be no change in the time required for it to traverse that leg of
the light course. And so there would be no change in the interference
fringe pattern. Wow! That explains it! (sic)
>>> Problem 1 for Math and Science: The contraction explained above has value zero when an apparatus arm is normal to the velocity vector of the Earth. Rotate that same arm 90 degrees so that the axis of the arm is on axis with Earth's velocity vector, and a contraction would occur (according to Lorentz). Generations of scientists have wrongly assumed that light being emitted, or being reflected by a mirror in the apparatus, is in the SUBTRACTIVE direction, i.e., were you subtract the Earth's velocity component from the velocity of light, c. And the direction of the light beam would always be a component opposite to the direction of movement of the Earth. Lorentz's explanation "works" only during the 180 degrees of apparatus rotation wherein the velocity component is always SUBTRACTIVE. But it can never work for the remaining 180 degrees of rotation, wherein, the Earth's velocity component ADDS to velocity c! In the additive cases, the apparatus would have to LENGTHEN (not just go back to zero) to cause the arrival times of the faster moving light to traverse that leg of the light course in the same amount of time. Since Lorentz's equation "explains" contraction only, then, it isn't the correct explanation for the negative results of M-M. Since Einstein based his SR and his GR on Lorentz-Fitzgerald, then, Einstein is disproved entirely!
Problem 2 for Math and Science: The Michelson-Morley experiment was
incredibility sensitive to the most minute changes in the locations,
or relocations, of any of its component parts. Because of that,
generations of scientists have wrongly assumed that M-M, also, should
be a wonderful measure of changes in the velocity of light. Before M-
M it was assumed that light velocity should be variable, either
because of "ether drag" or because of the effect of having the light
being emitted or reflected in an additive or a subtractive
orientation. But when M-M didn't verify those beliefs, not a single
person before yours truly was willing to use 9th grade algebra to find
the design flaw in M-M!
What I learned is that 45 degree mirrors automatically compensate for
light velocity changes! Except for two cases in which the light is
emitted or reflected on the axis of the velocity vector, light in the
moving apparatus will always hit the 45 degree beamsplitter off of the
designed centerline. And such is the ONLY manifestation of the
Earth's velocity component in M-M. If light hits off center, say,
closer to the nearer edge of the 45 degree beamsplitter, then, the
next leg (the distance that needs to be traveled) will be increased a
like amount, and vice versa. Having a 45 degree beamsplitter in BOTH
light courses means that the experiment has no CONTROL or fiducial
zero, as Michelson liked to call it. To measure things by
interference, one of the two light courses must not vary because of
velocity. The only way to assure that one light course is invariable
is to have it be located on the z-z axis (only) and to rotate the
interferometer about the z-z axis. My own interferometer is so
designed, and it DETECTS the Earth's changing velocity vector!
Problem 3 for Math and Science: Einstein said: "There isn't enough
energy in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to
travel to velocity c." The reason? He teaches that mass and energy
are equivalent, and that any form of energy--even KE--will increase mass
(sic). Einstein's idea about kinetic energy comes from the 1830
equation by Coriolis, KE=1/2mv^2. But that formula was derived from
empirical observations that won't pass the scientific method
standards. Lead shots were dropped into soft clay. Because a shot
dropped with twice the velocity penetrated four times as far into the
clay, it was wrongly assumed that KE accrues parabolically with
respect to velocity. Coriolis, nor anyone before yours truly,
realized that measures of KE must consider the size, shape and
strengths of the materials being compressed, and not try to ascribe
all of the strains, deflections, penetrations, or general destruction
to the velocity alone! Penetrations into clay are influenced by the
internal friction of the clay particles. Engineers knows that the
coefficient of sliding friction is less than the coefficient of
friction at rest. To use clay as the basis of measurement, it must be
shown that the distance of dynamic penetration is directly
proportional to KE. But no such tests were ever made! They just
assumed parity, and that is a severe violation of the SCIENTIFIC
METHOD!
The problem with the Coriolis equation is: If a dropped object's KE
increases semi-parabolically (Einstein says it increases
parabolically!), then, there must be an input of KE each successive
second that is greater than in the previous second. Where does a
dropped object get its KE? From the uniform (for each mass) force of
gravity! If gravity must impart more force each and every second,
then, gravity must have some mechanism for sensing the speed of all
falling objects--because it must, somehow, always apply the most energy
to the fastest falling objects! Since there is no mechanism for
gravity to sense falling objects' speeds, then, both Coriolis and
Einstein violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and Einstein's
theories are totally disproved, thereby! <<<
The above is a capsule description of why Einstein's theories are
wrong. By my invalidation of M-M, and my invalidation of Coriolis's
equation for KE--that Einstein based the top half of his SR equation on--
I disprove both of his supposed theories of relativity. Those
interested in more detailed explanations should read one or more of my
earlier posts:
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3ea639ab48/bb6e0bd1298e1b29?lnk=gst&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#bb6e0bd1298e1b29
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/4b4000f048066b05/6090078209f40a83?lnk=gst&q=Last+Nails+in+Einstein%27s+Coffin#6090078209f40a83
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316d698bf71/8ed7db0548e8f3e7?#8ed7db0548e8f3e7
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a6364aa15d391a/5c5e96de8389eedc?hl=en&q=An+Einstein+Disproof+For+Dummies&lnk=ol&
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721979f0209/504bdf8c1d1b1833?lnk=gst&q=Another+Look+at+Einstein#504bdf8c1d1b1833
Respectfully submitted,
-- NoEinstein --
xx...@comcast.net
>
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
>
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
>
> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> -- NoEinstein --
xxein:
Problem 1: Each arm path is TWLS --- one additive one subtractive.
This nullifies your assumption and conclusion. But always remember
that any clock in this fixed system is equally affected as another.
This may prove handy for you in future considerations.
Problem 2: z-axis source is just as constant as any x,y-axis source.
What difference would that make?
As I can see it, you have a calibration problem with a non-aligned z-
axis to x,y. Are all axes physically connected with fixed rods? If z
is not connected so, or if x,y are not on the same plane and parallel
the cog of Earth (level - another calibration), certain gravitational
problems affecting light's speed will show themselves.
Unfortunately for you, the only known calibration method for such an
apparatus is the null result itself.
But there is good news also. IF you calibrate correctly and establish
x,y,z wrt Earth's cog and have a fixed x, perp y, perp z appatatus
with an aligned z to cog, any change in the z alignment to cog will
produce a fringe shift as the result of such change when rotated about
z.
I don't know how good of a scientist you think you are but it may be
suffice to say that light bends. To go beyond that, I would be
describing a physic within bounds of measurement but unthought of for
consideration because it may violate the present general physical
senses that science has adopted.
I will say this, though. If we agree that light bends in gravity and
that gravity is not a linear function, how is the "bend" manifested
when light is traveling along a line directly along and toward the
cog? If this bending of light is non-linearly radius dependent, what
would your appatatus show when altering the x-x,y,z-axes away from gog-
line?
You have back-doored your way to a discovery, although you don't know
what it means yet.
I have given you sufficient hints to allow you to come to realize how
to think and/or proceed with your thinking.
I have been waiting a long time for someone to do M-M with z. And now
a question. I have a common laser that splits its beam x, y, z. How
would the crystal/mirror be made to only partially reflect the light
as in doing a M-M? And for further thought, suppose the manufacturing
method used the M-M null and 100k units were identically calibrated.
How could we ever know that z was aligned correctly without an in-
house rotation test that would be akin and produce a null result as in
a M-M - z?
Comments?
Eric Gisse
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
>state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
>Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon. Nor is it logical
>that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. That 'fact' is
>quite convenient for cosmologists, because it allows the supposed Big
>Bang to progress through a super expansive stage--but without having to
>conform to present laws of physics.
The science side of you also can't figure out why relativity is
accepted by all of modern physics as an unfalsified model for reality.
The science side of you is not worth that much, apparently.
[remaining junk snipped]
Sam Wormley
> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
> state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
> Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon.
The Big Bang Model makes no such claim... Do some self-education.
Bill Hobba
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
> state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
> Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon.
Since it is entirely consistent it is logical.
> Nor is it logical
> that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang.
Since it is the birth of space and time it is entirely logical. Indeed
speaking of a 'before' prior to the existence of time is highly illogical.
> That 'fact' is
> quite convenient for cosmologists,
Since it is a not a 'fact' it is not inconvenient at all.
Rest of misconceptions snipped.
Bill
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:XXq3j.18255$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became
>> appalled at the sad state of Cosmology. It isn't
>> logical that all of the matter in the Universe was
>> once compressed to the size of a muon.
>
> Since it is entirely consistent it is logical.
He tricked you. There was no *matter* when the Universe was that
size. No construct we could recognize existed at that very
energetic state.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f2r3j.27476$aN3....@newsfe12.phx...
Yes of course. But in that context my response means the Big Bang
Theory/Inflation is consistent so is not illogical.
Thanks
Bill
>
> David A. Smith
>
Sanders Kaufman
Here's what I think is happening...
In the first paragraph, you use a time-tense to explain the big bang.
But I think the big bang is *always* happening - from our 4d perspective,
anyway.
All matter tends toward entropy - but what happens when matter reaches
entropy?
It BANGs, "rotating" back inside itself and becoming life - like the
magnetic ways of a hollow cylinder, but in a dimension that is abstract from
ours.
So, entropy that tends toward matter is life force - the Human Factor.
Thus - although the big bang is only perceptible at the beginning and end of
the universe (entropy, the tips of the tube), it is actually always guding
us from it's tertiary dimension.
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
bz
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
> What I learned is that 45 degree mirrors automatically compensate for
> light velocity changes! Except for two cases in which the light is
> emitted or reflected on the axis of the velocity vector, light in the
> moving apparatus will always hit the 45 degree beamsplitter off of the
> designed centerline. And such is the ONLY manifestation of the
> Earth's velocity component in M-M. If light hits off center, say,
> closer to the nearer edge of the 45 degree beamsplitter, then, the
> next leg (the distance that needs to be traveled) will be increased a
> like amount, and vice versa.
If you were right, then a duplicate of their experiment, performed in a
flowing medium, would ALSO show a null result.
The arms would not need to be nearly so long, if your apparatus were
submerged in water flowing at a moderate rate.
Your chance for a Nobel prize, IF you can show that the experiment fails to
show fringe shift.
I look forward to seeing your results.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
NoEinstein
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear xx: You are "new" to my discussions, and thus not well apprised
of the issues necessary to understand M-M. I recommend that you also
read some of my other posts that may make my findings clearer for
you. My willingness to take-you-by-the-hand and explain things to you--
from square one--will depend on just "who" you are. By your initial
comment, it seems likely that you are just another shoot-from-the-hip
Einsteiniac, unwilling to even consider that what you were "taught" in
college, and what you have prided yourself that you "understand" is
wrong.
If you are willing to reply in such a way as to show that you have an
open mind, I will be more than happy to explain things. But you must
show a willingness to think, not just spout off about things to "wow"
the readers that you are the final word on anything. --NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:24:43 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: First, graduate. Then, get a job. Then, get a life! In
about ten years you should have been put-in-your-place enough to
develope a contrite heart for your immaturity. When that happens, you
can appologize for being a parasite.
Why don't you make a post or two of your own? Your status isn't as
sound as you fantasize. --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
OK, then, if not a muon, what size does it claim? --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Dear Bill: Like so many Einsteiniacs, you believe that (1.): "The sky
is blue, only if there is someone to see it." And (2.): "If a tree
falls in the forest, it makes no sound unless there are ears to hear
it." Understanding abstract concepts requires a good mind. If your
brain was pigeon droppings, you'd have a clean cage! --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
wrote:
> Dear Bill Hobba:
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote in message
>
> news:XXq3j.18255$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
> > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became
> >> appalled at the sad state of Cosmology. It isn't
> >> logical that all of the matter in the Universe was
> >> once compressed to the size of a muon.
>
> > Since it is entirely consistent it is logical.
>
> He tricked you. There was no *matter* when the Universe was that
> size. No construct we could recognize existed at that very
> energetic state.
>
> David A. Smith
Dear David: Go back into the woodwork; termites shun the light of
truths. --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:f2r3j.27476$aN3....@newsfe12.phx...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Bill Hobba:
>
> > "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote in message
> >news:XXq3j.18255$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became
> >>> appalled at the sad state of Cosmology. It isn't
> >>> logical that all of the matter in the Universe was
> >>> once compressed to the size of a muon.
>
> >> Since it is entirely consistent it is logical.
>
> > He tricked you. There was no *matter* when the Universe was that size.
> > No construct we could recognize existed at that very energetic state.
>
> Yes of course. But in that context my response means the Big Bang
> Theory/Inflation is consistent so is not illogical.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Bill: Have some fun with this: Where was God standing when the
Big Bang began? --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
Dear Sanders: The "idea" for the Big Bang came to us because of
astronomer Hubble. When images of more distant galaxies showed
increasing red shifts in the spectra, he just assumed (wrongly) that
this was a Doppler effect. The religious communities loved the
implication of a Big Bang, because they could consider that to be the
beginning of the "seven day" creation. But the Big Bang took a huge
blow when it was shown that the rate of expansion would have needed to
be far greater at some point in order for the universe to be as it is
observed, today.
Enter Einstein... Because that moron said that time and space don't
exist near massive objects, the so-called scientists could let the
universe go through a super-expansive phase without the requirement
that any laws of physics, as we know them today, apply. In a
nutshell, believing in the Big Bang is a religious artifice, not a
scientific fact. I like that you have an innocent, philosophical way
of looking at science. Thanks for your comments. --NoEinstein--
> I'm undergoing a similarly uneducated chataqua.
> Here's what I think is happening...
>
> In the first paragraph, you use a time-tense to explain the big bang.
> But I think the big bang is *always* happening - from our 4d perspective,
> anyway.
>
> All matter tends toward entropy - but what happens when matter reaches
> entropy?
> It BANGs, "rotating" back inside itself and becoming life - like the
> magnetic ways of a hollow cylinder, but in a dimension that is abstract from
> ours.
> So, entropy that tends toward matter is life force - the Human Factor.
> Thus - although the big bang is only perceptible at the beginning and end of
> the universe (entropy, the tips of the tube), it is actually always guding
> us from it's tertiary dimension.
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
>
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in news:SLx3j.3073$C24.2866
> @newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>
> > What I learned is that 45 degree mirrors automatically compensate for
> > light velocity changes! Except for two cases in which the light is
> > emitted or reflected on the axis of the velocity vector, light in the
> > moving apparatus will always hit the 45 degree beamsplitter off of the
> > designed centerline. And such is the ONLY manifestation of the
> > Earth's velocity component in M-M. If light hits off center, say,
> > closer to the nearer edge of the 45 degree beamsplitter, then, the
> > next leg (the distance that needs to be traveled) will be increased a
> > like amount, and vice versa.
>
> If you were right, then a duplicate of their experiment, performed in a
> flowing medium, would ALSO show a null result.
Dear bz: Yes, you are right. But I don't have the big finances, nor
the time, to construct every possible variation to satify the many
wild-goose-chases involving M-M.
>
> The arms would not need to be nearly so long, if your apparatus were
> submerged in water flowing at a moderate rate.
The longest "arm" of my present x-y-z apparatus is just 36". Note:
I'm not trying to detect ether drag on light. Light, under most
circumstances, is nurtured on its way by the ether. And light never
gets "dragged" below velocity 'c'!
>
> Your chance for a Nobel prize, IF you can show that the experiment fails to
> show fringe shift.
I only explain WHY M-M failed; I have no intention of doing any
experiments using x-y interferometers. As for "that prize": money
from non goveremental sources would be a valuable research aid. But
the prize itself has 'egg on its face'. I suppose... it would depend
on the attitude(s) of the moment.
>
> I look forward to seeing your results.
Would you like for me to send you my mathematical disproof article?
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
bz: You are one of the few who hints having an open mind. Without
more people with those, science isn't going very far. --NoEinstein --
dlzc
On Nov 29, 10:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...
> Dear David: Go back into the woodwork; termites shun
> the light of truths.
Which makes me wonder why you keep coming out where facts rule. Just
watch out for the anteater tongues.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
Do some self-education.
JanPB
> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
> state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
> Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon. Nor is it logical
> that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. That 'fact' is
> quite convenient for cosmologists, because it allows the supposed Big
> Bang to progress through a super expansive stage--but without having to
> conform to present laws of physics.
This is all nice and looks well-intentioned but also very naive. I
suggest you first find out more about how science has always been
done. Then I suggest you admit a possibility that many physicists
actually may agree with you about the Big Bang. The fact also remains
that we do not have yet a good replacement for GR and QM that would
encompass both. So studying what you (and many physicists, Einstein
himself very much included) consider deficiencies of GR (and QM as
well) is a good way of looking for the right solution in general - as
in "learning from one's mistakes" kind of thing. Do not naively
construe any serious study and strongly defending of GR as some sort
of "blindly defending the holy faith" as so many kooks on this NG
childishly assume.
Strange as it may seem to the amateurs, real scientists are actually
much more critical and open-minded than their "critics" assume.
--
Jan Bielawski
Eric Gisse
Tell you what - post under your real name and show that your education
in physics is superior to mine and I'll at least pretend to pay
attention to your unreasonable and idiotic demands.
>
>Why don't you make a post or two of your own? Your status isn't as
>sound as you fantasize. --NoEinstein--
I do, on occasion. The trouble is that my interests are advanced
enough that folks like you cannot help me. Since you have such a
chubby for google groups, search my posting history for threads I have
created and see how few, much less knowledgable, replies I get for
technical questions.
Sanders Kaufman
> On Nov 29, 6:43 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Sanders: The "idea" for the Big Bang came to us because of
> astronomer Hubble. When images of more distant galaxies showed
> increasing red shifts in the spectra, he just assumed (wrongly) that
> this was a Doppler effect. The religious communities loved the
> implication of a Big Bang, because they could consider that to be the
> beginning of the "seven day" creation. But the Big Bang took a huge
> blow when it was shown that the rate of expansion would have needed to
> be far greater at some point in order for the universe to be as it is
> observed, today.
I don't have much faith in that last sentence, which would indeed disprove
big bang.
I think you're saying that for something to expand - it would have to go
past a given point.
And, conversely, for it to retract, to retract from a given point.
In a Newtonian universe - yeah, that's what happens.
Matter that expands beyond the Newtonian universe would have to go
somewhere, right?
But when you're talking about the universe as a whole, you're speaking
relative to other, non-newtonian universes - universes not constrained by
such limits.
Consider if the passage of time is's cyclical, (not wavey, but cyclical).
Since expansion beyond the infinte is impossible in a Newtonian universe, I
think that matter goes back in time... to the big bang.
Furthermore, as it does so, it manifests itself as life force.
Sanders Kaufman
news:2ecd48fd-2ab8-4e32...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 3:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
>> state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
>> Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon. Nor is it logical
>> that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. That 'fact' is
>> quite convenient for cosmologists, because it allows the supposed Big
>> Bang to progress through a super expansive stage--but without having to
>> conform to present laws of physics.
>
> This is all nice and looks well-intentioned but also very naive. I
When someone who posts as "NoEinstein" is responding to a guy who starts out
by saying "I ain't no math guy", naivete' is an absolute given .
Bill Hobba
I claim she was sitting.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> On Nov 28, 11:09 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fa641b9d-e5c1-4aea...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
>> > state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
>> > Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon.
>>
>> Since it is entirely consistent it is logical.
>>
>> > Nor is it logical
>> > that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang.
>>
>> Since it is the birth of space and time it is entirely logical. Indeed
>> speaking of a 'before' prior to the existence of time is highly
>> illogical.
>>
>> > That 'fact' is
>> > quite convenient for cosmologists,
>>
>> Since it is a not a 'fact' it is not inconvenient at all.
>>
>> Rest of misconceptions snipped.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Dear Bill: Like so many Einsteiniacs, you believe that (1.): "The sky
> is blue, only if there is someone to see it."
No I don't.
> And (2.): "If a tree
> falls in the forest, it makes no sound unless there are ears to hear
> it."
No I don't.
> Understanding abstract concepts requires a good mind.
Nope - nothing but common sense - which is why 11 year olds cotton onto
Euclidian geometry so easily and guys like you never post any math.
> If your
> brain was pigeon droppings, you'd have a clean cage! --NoEinstein--
Good - I hate cleaning up poop.
Bill
NoEinstein
Dear David: If you would comment, objectively, on my posts, rather
than subjectively, I will respond appropriately. --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
Sam: Edify me. You claim the Big Bang started from a size different
from a muon. What then? --NoEinstein--
NoEinstein
Dear Jan: Don't take it personally if I call anything related to
Einstein 'a religion'. Einstein is accepted on faith (i.e., don't
know, but believe). The purpose of my post isn't to argue the Big
Bang, but to state how ridiculous compression by gravity to
'nothingness' is. If you are a physicist yourself, why haven't you,
personally, rebelled at allowing that man to be held high by academia
as an important scientist in any regard? It would seem that
physicists, in general, are perfectly contented to let the Kaku Coo
Coos, and their ilk, glorify stupidity. And the naive media is none
the wiser. Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
errors in the texts, just because no one has enough self-confidence to
change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: You are a groupie and a leach. The only reason you follow
me around is because I draw a crowd. If you are unhappy with the
responses to your technical questions, stop asking questions, and
start making true statements. Read between the lines... go away! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:944a8353-a1ea-4e74...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 29, 6:43 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sanders: The "idea" for the Big Bang came to us because of
> > astronomer Hubble. When images of more distant galaxies showed
> > increasing red shifts in the spectra, he just assumed (wrongly) that
> > this was a Doppler effect. The religious communities loved the
> > implication of a Big Bang, because they could consider that to be the
> > beginning of the "seven day" creation. But the Big Bang took a huge
> > blow when it was shown that the rate of expansion would have needed to
> > be far greater at some point in order for the universe to be as it is
> > observed, today.
>
> I don't have much faith in that last sentence, which would indeed disprove
> big bang.
>
> I think you're saying that for something to expand - it would have to go
> past a given point.
> And, conversely, for it to retract, to retract from a given point.
> In a Newtonian universe - yeah, that's what happens.
> Matter that expands beyond the Newtonian universe would have to go
> somewhere, right?
Sanders: No, what I'm saying is that the Universe isn't expanding at
all. Light ages, causing red shifts. The 'mechanism' of gravity
makes it incapable of drawing all of the matter together. Instead of
a Big Bang, there were a lot of 'Little Bangs'. Galaxies are the most
likely unit of 'creation'. In rare cases galaxies--as a result of
their formation dynamics, not due to gravity alone--can be drawn
together.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sitting off to the side, or at the center?
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Bill: Newsgroup arguments are out-of-control if 'math' becomes
the issue. Lorentz and FitzGerald were mathematicians. Wow! Did
they ever screw up with their factor Beta! If the principles are
right, THEN you do math. Most of my disproofs of Einstein involve the
principles, like: M-M not having a CONTROL. I have done a
mathematical analysis--to nine significant figures accuracy--of my
hypothesis: "That light speeds up and slows down the same way that the
sound of a train does in passing." And my hypothesis explains why M-M
had nil results! L & F screwed up by approaching the problem with the
'given' that the maximum velocity of light is 'c' (sic). An they
especially screwed up by not including the strengths and the
geometries of the materials in the apparatus as 'factors' in their
IMAGINED... contraction of all matter in the Universe, due to velocity.
A wise scientist gets the principles right, first, then does the math!
-- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Yes...that's how science works. If nobody can answer your question,
don't ask the question.
dlzc
On Nov 30, 3:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:07 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 10:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Dear David: Go back into the woodwork; termites shun
> > > the light of truths.
>
> > Which makes me wonder why you keep coming out where
> > facts rule. Just watch out for the anteater tongues.
>
> Dear David: If you would comment, objectively, on my posts, rather
> than subjectively, I will respond appropriately. --NoEinstein--
Responded objectively. Got a personal attack. Have you become
dishonest too?
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
> Sam: Edify me. You claim the Big Bang started from a size different
> from a muon. What then? --NoEinstein--
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Jan: Don't take it personally if I call anything related to
> Einstein 'a religion'. Einstein is accepted on faith (i.e., don't
> know, but believe).
Relativity is tested often.... hardly the characteristic of
a religion.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Relativity passes new test of time
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/31792;jsessionid=EC8814A7BFC11130E2FE98386614EFE7
And a good tutorial is
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
Testing special relativity
Einstein's famous tenet of special relativity -- that time slows down
on a moving clock -- has been verified 10 times more precisely than
ever before. The result comes from physicists in Germany and Canada,
who have timed the "ticking" of lithium ions as they hurtle around a
ring at a fraction of the speed of light.
Sit two clocks side by side and, if they are accurate, they will
always show the same time. But if one clock is moving rapidly, it
will appear to an observer standing next to the stationary clock to
be ticking too slowly. This "time dilation" effect, which was
predicted by Einstein in his special theory of relativity in 1905,
has been verified many times -- first to within 1% of predictions in
an experiment by Herbert Ives and G R Stilwell in 1938, and more
recently by comparing the times of atomic clocks on Earth with those
of orbiting global-positioning-system (GPS) satellites.
Such measurements haven't stopped scientists from suggesting
deviations from special relativity, however. For instance, those that
are looking for explanations why there is much more matter than
antimatter in the universe often invoke a violation of "CPT theorem",
which says that the laws of physics remain the same if the charge,
parity and time-reversal properties of a particle are inverted
together. CPT violation can justify the observed excess of normal
matter, but it might also imply the equations underlying the Standard
Model of particle physics, which are based on special relativity, are
incomplete.
Testing times
Experiments by Gerald Gwinner from the University of Manitoba in
Canada, together with colleagues from various German institutions,
give no hint of such deviations from special relativity and thus
physics beyond the Standard Model. To test Einstein's theory, they
improved on a technique called laser saturation spectroscopy to
measure the time dilation of groups of lithium-7 ions injected at
high speed into a magnetic storage ring, based at the Max Planck
Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg (Nature Physics advance
online publication).
When at rest with respect to an observer, lithium-7 ions have an
electronic transition between energy levels that always takes place
at a frequency close to 546 THz -- effectively a "ticking clock". In
principle, the amount time dilation changes this frequency for
speeding lithium-7 ions could be found by illuminating them with a
laser from behind and noting the laser frequency that incites the
transition -- shown by the ions "fluorescing" or absorbing and
re-emitting photons in all directions. In practice, a group of ions
in a storage ring have a distribution of velocities, which limits the
measurement precision.
Two observers
The researchers avoid this limitation by aiming a second laser into
the beam of ions. Although this laser also makes all the ions
fluoresce, those in the centre of the velocity distribution receive
so many photons that their fluorescence saturates causing a local dip
in the spectrum so that ions of only one velocity are "marked".
Gwinner and colleagues then take the product of the two lasers'
frequencies, which -- according to special relativity -- should be
equal to the square of the transition frequency when the lithium-7
ions are stationary. But because this transition frequency isn't
known accurately enough for their needs, the researchers repeat the
experiment for lithium-7 ions travelling at both 3% and 6.4% of the
speed of light and check the products are the same.
As expected, the products were indeed the same. But the accuracy of
Gwinner and colleagues' experiment, which is quantified by a
"Mansouri-Sexl parameter" of less than 8.4 в 10^-8, is over 10 times
better than the GPS tests of special relativity. "It means that at
the sensitivity level of our experiment, and all others that look for
evidence of new physics beyond the Standard Model, is not high enough
yet to see anything," Gwinner told physicsworld.com.
Bill Hobba
Since God can make a rock she can not lift, I claim she was doing both
simultaneously, even though time did not exist.
Bill
Bill Hobba
No - they allow communication of ideas not easily done any other way.
> Lorentz and FitzGerald were mathematicians.
They were physicists. Learn the difference then repost.
Rest snipped
Bill
Bill Hobba
Wrong. Like any theory it is accepted as long as it is in accord with
experiment.
> The purpose of my post isn't to argue the Big
> Bang, but to state how ridiculous compression by gravity to
> 'nothingness' is.
That's because you don't understand what the big bang and inflation actually
says. The universe did not start from nothingness - it stated from the
'false vacuum'.
> If you are a physicist yourself, why haven't you,
> personally, rebelled at allowing that man to be held high by academia
> as an important scientist in any regard?
Judged by any objective standard Einstein was one of the greatest scientists
of all time.
> It would seem that
> physicists, in general, are perfectly contented to let the Kaku Coo
> Coos, and their ilk, glorify stupidity. And the naive media is none
> the wiser. Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
> errors in the texts,
Mind listing those errors? So far all you have demostrated is a zero
understanding of what your are criticizing. That does not speak well of
your ability to determine what is an error.
> just because no one has enough self-confidence to
> change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
> are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
> too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
> NoEinstein --
I can't recall offhand if JB is a professional physicist, but many who post
here are, eg Tom Roberts. But that is beside the point. What JB wrote is
well known to any with a basic understanding of science, and has nothing to
do with an appeal to authority.
Bill
Bill Hobba
I strongly advise you to read Sam's links. I also suggest you acquaint
yourself with:
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~yulsman/Instanton1.html
You may then be in a position to make valid criticisms.
Bill
Bill Hobba
And exactly how is your theory in better accord with observation than the
big-bang/inflation model?
Bill
xx...@comcast.net
> On Nov 28, 8:36 pm, xx...@comcast.net wrote:
>
On Nov 29, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:36 pm, xx...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 6:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >xxein:
>
> > Problem 1: Each arm path is TWLS --- one additive one subtractive.
> > This nullifies your assumption and conclusion. But always remember
> > that any clock in this fixed system is equally affected as another.
> > This may prove handy for you in future considerations.
>
> > Problem 2: z-axis source is just as constant as any x,y-axis source.
> > What difference would that make?
> > As I can see it, you have a calibration problem with a non-aligned z-
> > axis to x,y. Are all axes physically connected with fixed rods? If z
> > is not connected so, or if x,y are not on the same plane and parallel
> > the cog of Earth ...
>
> > read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> of the issues necessary to understand M-M. I recommend that you also
> read some of my other posts that may make my findings clearer for
> you. My willingness to take-you-by-the-hand and explain things to you--
> from square one--will depend on just "who" you are. By your initial
> comment, it seems likely that you are just another shoot-from-the-hip
> Einsteiniac, unwilling to even consider that what you were "taught" in
> college, and what you have prided yourself that you "understand" is
> wrong.
>
> If you are willing to reply in such a way as to show that you have an
> open mind, I will be more than happy to explain things. But you must
> show a willingness to think, not just spout off about things to "wow"
> the readers that you are the final word on anything. --NoEinstein --
xxein: I wilI make my response rather long.
I have twenty-three years of M&M's under my belt and Lorentz wins
hands down, although not completely. He did not address gravity
(which is 'our' z-axis). Do not confuse what I say with the
ponticatatuions of Einstein.
I did not want to get that far into the gravity part except to say
that it is constant like the x,y part. But being constant does not
necessarily mean that it is in all ways equal to x,y. Everyone seems
to get a hint about that part of it. If gravity bends light, how is
it manifested along the z-axis? See where I'm going? If z cannot
remain perfectly aligned to gravity, it looses its constancy as the
off-angle varies. If the z-axis were to rotate around the true
gravity line, it would still remain constant but that means that the x
and y would be forced to fluctuate from the perpendicularity of the
gravity line to maintain perpendicularity to the z-axis. This forces
x and y to a cosine function as they stay perpendicular to a z that is
untrue to the gravity line.
Who am I? Nobody. And I like it that way. In all my years of
collegiate work, I did not take courses in this type of physical
study; just gears, mechanical forces (stresses), but not quantum,
cosmos or a relativity or anything in between. All classical. I just
wanted to get a college education to satisfy the job market. Computer
science, logic, oceanography, whatever. But I found that any science
or techno-study was far outstripped by the current industries by an
average of 4 years. Post-graduate work might have changed my
attitude, but it was too late. I quit.
I sort of rediscovered this type of physics more than 20 years later.
I thought that it was about time that I learned what Einstein had done
to further physics. It was going to be my hobby for a while (while I
was unemployed). He was supposed to be the guru along with Hawking
(at that time). That didn't last for very long at all. Logic forbid
it even though I couldn't produce the interface that would. You just
know --- you know? There was something rotten in Denmark.
So, I have studied this physics (ex-collegiate) for the last 23 years
and made just one discovery (1989 - about 17 years after college) that
allows everything to be logical and comprehensive from quanta to
cosmos. I got familiar with the internet etc. and wanted to tell all
who would listen. What a suprise! They were all mesmerized by the
Einsteinian like nothing else could exist.
But there were other intermediate ideas at this time that could not
make it to theory. They couldn't make a logical connection. It
seemed OK that Einstein got a free ride on his logic because we didn't
know any better at the time. Don't anybody get me wrong here.
Einstein nearly perfected a subjectively oriented observational physic
but it cannot escape the confines of a made-up pinball machine. It is
finite in essense because of a finite speed of light.
But! There is a Shapiro delay and gravitational redshifts and even
black holes to reckon with. Each of these is not solely dependent on
an Einsteinian formulation because Einstein gave but a subjective
measurement of these things - not a physical reason for why they
should be.
There was a chaos theory. For my mind, It only means that a part
cannot understand the whole. How about self-similarity? Good one.
We can see this everywhere. But there is no follow-up physical
explanation for how this may occur. We can make a math about them but
how are they physical? Somehow the physic obeys its laws. What are
they? And to further complicate matters, how does any theory come to
unity with its siblings to satisfy the total of the physic as defined
by each in its own way?
It is the fault of each and everyone of us to pick a theory and persue
it as a belief of how the physic operates. Yet we make a progress.
But is this progress measured in terms of building widgets or
understanding the physic??? But we think we already understand the
physic!!! We think wrong. Our focus remains with the widgets and the
technology used to make them.
You are not going to tell me what gravity IS, are you? If you do so,
try to tell me in a way that differentiates the z-axis from gravity in
the normal scheme of M&M's.
NoEinstein
Do you still beat your wife? -- NoEinstein --
dlzc
...
> Do you still beat your wife?
That's an "appropriate response"?
David A. Smith
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > Sam: Edify me. You claim the Big Bang started from a size different
> > from a muon. What then? --NoEinstein--
>
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Sam: They can't find a center (starting point of the Universe)
because: THE BIG BANG DIDN'T HAPPEN! Increasing red shifts in the
spectra of more distant galaxies are due to the aging of light.
However, a center would be evident if there had been a Big Bang.
Every new observation causes cosmologists to rationalize the
homogeneous, albeit Swiss Cheese, nature of the Universe. The "holes"
are zones of both low matter and low ether. Only in zones of high
matter, and ether, is the force of gravity an issue in how galaxies
form. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Jan: Don't take it personally if I call anything related to
> > Einstein 'a religion'. Einstein is accepted on faith (i.e., don't
> > know, but believe).
>
> Relativity is tested often.... hardly the characteristic of
> a religion.
Right observations, wrong explanation (space-time contraction near
massive objects).
>
> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experi...
None, but with atomic particles banging into the ether that then
clumps in front of the particles, as I have explained, often. Those
clocks--atomic or mechanical--slow because of being hit with ether. And
ether can restrain the decay of radioactive particles like muons. In
some cases, the ether can actually build new mass, because all matter
is composed of varying tangles and densities (energy concentrations)
of the clumps of ether.
For those interested in studying very small things, a single polar
ether unit, that I call an IOTA is the smallest thing in the
Universe. It is likely to be doughnut shaped, and other doughnuts can
pass through like magician's metal rings and form doughnuts on a
ring. But pragmatic physics doesn't need to know everything. --
NoEinstein --
>
> Relativity passes new test of time
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/31792;jsessionid=EC8814A7BFC...
> "Mansouri-Sexl parameter" of less than 8.4 × 10^-8, is over 10 times
NoEinstein
Oh? Come back down to Earth, Bill. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Bill: They wrote a mathematical equation that "hits a wall" at
velocity 'c'. If they had been physicists (other than in name only),
they would have considered the different moduli of elasticity of all
materials. And considered the infinite number material sizes, shapes
and configurations. And they would have considered this: If the
rotating Earth has a continually varying velocity vector, then it too
would be constantly compressed and released; compressed and released.
(sic) But matter resists being compressed! So... the Earth would
quickly slow, so that only one hemisphere points toward the Sun. Life
on Earth wouldn't exist if L & F's equation, Beta, is correct. Haa,
haa, hee -- NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam: They can't find a center (starting point of the Universe)
> because: THE BIG BANG DIDN'T HAPPEN! Increasing red shifts in the
> spectra of more distant galaxies are due to the aging of light.
Tired light --- has just failed two crucial tests
Ref: Volume 292, Number 5526, Issue of 29 Jun 2001, p. 2414.
Copyright © 2001 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science
ASTROPHYSICS: 'Tired-Light' Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired
Charles Seife
The "tired-light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band
of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the
expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch.
Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best
direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding and
promise to shed light on the evolution of galaxies to boot.
"The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical
process. That is the conclusion," says Allan Sandage, an
astrophysicist at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena,
California, and leader of the galaxy study.
It's a conclusion that most astronomers reached long ago. In
1929, Edwin Hubble announced that light from distant
galaxies is redder than light from nearby ones. Hubble and
others took the redshifts as evidence that the universe is
expanding, causing distant galaxies to speed away faster
than nearby ones. To an observer on Earth, they reasoned,
this would appear to stretch the wavelength of their light,
just as the sound of a police-car siren seems to drop in
frequency as it speeds away. However, within a few months of
the publication of Hubble's paper, astrophysicist Franz
Zwicky came up with an alternative explanation: that
galaxies' light reddens because it loses energy as it passes
through space. In Zwicky's tired-light scenario, the
universe doesn't expand at all. Distant galaxies are red not
because they are moving, but because their light has
traveled farther and gotten pooped along the way.
Beyond the fringe. "Tired light"--a radical alternative to
the standard expanding-universe model of the cosmos--has
just failed two crucial tests.
When experimenters first measured the cosmic microwave
background more than 30 years ago, they found that the
radiation was too dim to be explained by Zwicky's
hypothesis. That realization relegated "tired light" firmly
to the fringe of physics, but scientists still sought more
direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.
Two new papers provide the best direct evidence yet. The
first, slated to appear in Astrophysical Journal, measures
the brightening and dimming of a certain type of supernova.
Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, if distant
supernovae are speeding away from us, they will appear to
flare and fade at a more leisurely pace than close-by ones.
A team of scientists led by Gerson Goldhaber of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California,
has shown that this is, indeed, the case with 42 recently
analyzed supernovae. "It's such a clean-looking curve," says
Saul Perlmutter, a member of the LBNL team. "It's very
unambiguous."
In the second study, Sandage and Lori Lubin of Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore analyzed space-based measurements of
the surface brightness of galaxies. Both the standard
expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they
realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant
galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding
universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic
distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them
appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's
more, young stars--and thus young galaxies--tend to be
considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra
brightness is taken into account, the observations match
expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will
report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory
to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer,
rather than brighter, than old ones. "There's no way to
explain that," says Lubin.
Although not surprising in themselves, the results are
useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says
Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who
performed a similar surface-brightness experiment in the
mid-1990s. By comparing the expanding-universe theory's
predictions with observed values of the surface brightness
of distant galaxies, scientists can work backward and figure
out how much brighter those galaxies must have been earlier
in the history of the universe.
Even so, researchers doubt whether the results will convert
tired-light diehards. "I don't think it's possible to
convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned
Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California,
Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a
psychological journal than for Science."
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill: Like too many supposed physicists, you glory in your
complexities. You are like a sign post at the North Pole pointing to
every possible direction. But if you like, stay mired in your beloved
complexities. I have disproved Einstein by invalidating his
foundation: M-M and Coriolis. You, nor anyone supporting Einstein can
build a Universe without those two falsehoods. Please find another
sparring partner regarding how many fairies can dance on the head of a
pen. Frankly... I don't give a damn. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
I strongly advise you to read each of my posts, this year. Sam's were
interesting; and I have replied. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Because it is CORRECT! -- NoEinstein --
>
>
> >> But when you're talking about the universe as a whole, you're speaking
> >> relative to other, non-newtonian universes - universes not constrained by
> >> such limits.
> >> Consider if the passage of time is's cyclical, (not wavey, but cyclical).
>
> >> Since expansion beyond the infinte is impossible in a Newtonian universe,
> >> I
> >> think that matter goes back in time... to the big bang.
> >> Furthermore, as it does so, it manifests itself as life force.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> On Nov 29, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 28, 8:36 pm, xx...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 8:36 pm, xx...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 6:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >xxein:
Dear xx: The main thing compelling most arm-chair physicists is
intellectual competitiveness. They all have this need to surpass.
Yes, many choose sides depending on how they understand that things
work. But most Einsteiniacs choose his side, because that can duck
behind his myriad complexities. My solution: don't concern myself
with arguing details--invalidate the M-M experiment, AND Coriolis's KE
equation on which Einstein based his infamous SR equation.
If you would like to understand why that 1887 M-M experiment was
wrongly designed, please go to my initial post of this "3 Problems..."
and read the links, or search the names of the various posts I list.
I have tried to explain things like a teacher. But I don't have time
to customize an explanation for you. But I would like to hear your
comments AFTER you read what I have already posted. Thanks for your
long reply--that I read with interest. -- NoEinstein --
> the normal scheme of M&M's.- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Bill: Have some fun with this: Where was God standing when the
> Big Bang began? --NoEinstein--
The big bang theory has no need of a god.
Sam Wormley
> If the
> rotating Earth has a continually varying velocity vector, then it too
> would be constantly compressed and released
From the perspective of the Sun, the earth does have a continually
varying velocity vector. And the Earth experiences tidal effects
most significantly from the moon and Sun
Our Restless Tides (NOAA) - A brief explanation of the basic astronomical
factors which produce tides and tidal currents.
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
>
> None, but with atomic particles banging into the ether that then
> clumps in front of the particles, as I have explained, often. Those
> clocks--atomic or mechanical--slow because of being hit with ether.
Slow with respect to what?
> And ether can restrain the decay of radioactive particles like muons.
No evidence for such!
> In some cases, the ether can actually build new mass, because all matter
> is composed of varying tangles and densities (energy concentrations)
> of the clumps of ether.
You should take a course in physics... or at least do some
self-education. Or perhaps not... as you are no Einstein! <laughing>
Sam Wormley
> I have disproved Einstein by invalidating his
> foundation: M-M and Coriolis.
There has never been a prediction of special (or general)
relativity that was contradicted by an observation...
including your! :-o
steven....@googlemail.com
> On Nov 29, 3:00 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
> > > state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
> > > that space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang. That 'fact' is
> > > quite convenient for cosmologists, because it allows the supposed Big
> > > Bang to progress through a super expansive stage--but without having to
> > > conform to present laws of physics.
>
> > This is all nice and looks well-intentioned but also very naive. I
> > suggest you first find out more about how science has always been
> > done. Then I suggest you admit a possibility that many physicists
> > actually may agree with you about the Big Bang. The fact also remains
> > that we do not have yet a good replacement for GR and QM that would
> > encompass both. So studying what you (and many physicists, Einstein
> > himself very much included) consider deficiencies of GR (and QM as
> > well) is a good way of looking for the right solution in general - as
> > in "learning from one's mistakes" kind of thing. Do not naively
> > construe any serious study and strongly defending of GR as some sort
> > of "blindly defending the holy faith" as so many kooks on this NG
> > childishly assume.
>
> > Strange as it may seem to the amateurs, real scientists are actually
> > much more critical and open-minded than their "critics" assume.
>
> > --
> > Jan Bielawski
>
> Dear Jan: Don't take it personally if I call anything related to
> Einstein 'a religion'. Einstein is accepted on faith (i.e., don't
> Bang, but to state how ridiculous compression by gravity to
> personally, rebelled at allowing that man to be held high by academia
> physicists, in general, are perfectly contented to let the Kaku Coo
> Coos, and their ilk, glorify stupidity. And the naive media is none
> the wiser. Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
> change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
> are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
> too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you are a profesional physicist, would you cite some of your recent
publications i would be interested in looking at them. What is your
area of research?
Bryan Olson
> Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
> errors in the texts, just because no one has enough self-confidence to
> change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
> are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
> too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
Bit hypocritical, don't you think? Outside of your own head,
your theories can exist only in such an open forum as this.
How did you manage to invalidate the Michelson-Morley
experiment and other Nobel-class results? Easy: You judged
your stuff yourself. Serious journals have competent
referees, so you work does not appear. No such standards
here. As your own referee you score your gutter-balls as
strikes and win every time.
--
--Bryan
Sanders Kaufman
news:HX%3j.18904$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Since God can make a rock she can not lift, I claim she was doing both
> simultaneously, even though time did not exist.
I love that one.
It's like asking a cartoon character to understand the concepts of depth and
time.
Of course she can make a rock she cannot lift.
Being everything and nothing, she's both god and not.
Once you grok the fullness of that, the idea that she both can and cannot
lift the rock makes *perfect* sense.
She is, after all, everything to everyone... and claiming she is anything
less is like saying she is not who she is... which she is.
That's not religion; that's science.
--
Newtonian: There are no wrong questions; only wrong answers.
Non-Newtonian: There are no wrong answers; only wrong questions.
Trans-D: There are an equal number of wrong and right,
questions
and answwers.
Sanders Kaufman
> On Nov 30, 6:20 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> And exactly how is your theory in better accord with observation than the
>> big-bang/inflation model?
>>
>> Bill
>
> Because it is CORRECT! -- NoEinstein --
That's it.
Don't let the bastards wear you down.
--
Newtonian: There are no wrong questions; only wrong answers.
Non-Newtonian: There are no wrong answers; only wrong questions.
TransDimensional: There are an equal number of wrong and right, questions
and answwers.
Sanders Kaufman
> On Nov 29, 4:02 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> I think you're saying that for something to expand - it would have to go
>> past a given point.
>> And, conversely, for it to retract, to retract from a given point.
>> In a Newtonian universe - yeah, that's what happens.
>> Matter that expands beyond the Newtonian universe would have to go
>> somewhere, right?
>
> Sanders: No, what I'm saying is that the Universe isn't expanding at
> all. Light ages, causing red shifts. The 'mechanism' of gravity
> makes it incapable of drawing all of the matter together. Instead of
> a Big Bang, there were a lot of 'Little Bangs'. Galaxies are the most
> likely unit of 'creation'. In rare cases galaxies--as a result of
> their formation dynamics, not due to gravity alone--can be drawn
> together.
Hehehe - trying to use tense and physical boundaries when defining
multi-dimensional physics.
A great way to go crazy, eh?
It's so self-defeating, it'll cause you to think that galaxies are the
source of the universe, instead of vice versa. ;)
That's why I think we *really* need a trans-dimensional liturgy developed.
Latin symbols, "is-was" and "here-there" just don't cut it.
They'll just drive ya mild.
That's why I don't see it the way you do.
It's not that I disagree with your conclusions; they're fine.
It's just that I think you're asking the wrong question.
You're trying to define the universe in times of height, width, depth and
time - like any rational person would.
That works fine - if you're trying to define just it's Newtonian subset of
properties.
But I think that to understand the *origin* of the universe, you need to
consider it in the context of all other universes... non-Newtonian
universes.
That means taking the question beyond the 4 newtonian constraints - to what
we percieve as "entropy".
Bill Hobba
They did.
> And considered the infinite number material sizes, shapes
> and configurations.
They did.
> And they would have considered this: If the
> rotating Earth has a continually varying velocity vector, then it too
> would be constantly compressed and released; compressed and released.
No it wouldn't.
> (sic) But matter resists being compressed!
Sure of that are we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pressure
> So... the Earth would
> quickly slow, so that only one hemisphere points toward the Sun. Life
> on Earth wouldn't exist if L & F's equation, Beta, is correct. Haa,
> haa, hee
Yes, the raucous of people laughing at you must be difficult be bear. To
avoid it, engage brain before penning messages.
Bill
> -- NoEinstein --
Bill Hobba
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:ZJ64j.225844$Fc.160782@attbi_s21...
As Meatloaf said - 'You took the words right out of my mouth -------'.
Thanks
Bill
John C. Polasek
wrote:
>
>"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:f25f32f3-9693-49a3...@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 29, 2:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> NoEinstein wrote:
>>> > On Nov 28, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> >> NoEinstein wrote:
>>> >>> Beginning in 2001, the science side of me became appalled at the sad
>>> >>> state of Cosmology. It isn't logical that all of the matter in the
>>> >>> Universe was once compressed to the size of a muon.
>>> >> The Big Bang Model makes no such claim... Do some self-education.
>>>
>>> > OK, then, if not a muon, what size does it claim? --NoEinstein--
>>>
>>> Do some self-education.
>>
>> Sam: Edify me. You claim the Big Bang started from a size different
>> from a muon. What then? --NoEinstein--
>
>I strongly advise you to read Sam's links. I also suggest you acquaint
>yourself with:
>http://stripe.colorado.edu/~yulsman/Instanton1.html
>
>You may then be in a position to make valid criticisms.
>
>Bill
I scanned the paper telling about Hawking. You mean you take seriously
this inane concept of a "pea instanton" of Hawking's to take the place
of the untenable muon-sized point of origin? So even Hawking's is
beginning to have his doubts and trying to find an accommodation.
I have not seen any alternative offered for the Big Bang theory, so I
guess we have to go with what we've got.
The BB is simply back-engineering from the proven expansion, giving it
a catchy title (which initially was pure sarcasm) and letting it grow
into a complete industry.
I notice that no explanation is even attempted for the expansion of
the universe-it just does. The expansion is not even credited to the
Big Bang, which really should be a central consideration. It appears
that after explaining the Big Bang, there is no further use for it.
In modern cosmology it is asserted that this universe has no shape, no
center and no center of mass and it is only its scale factor "a"
that's expanding. Or rather, staying the same, 1, while lesser a's
shrink.
It's a sorry commentary.
The OP is asking an honest question and the answer can't be so
abstruse that only the congnoscenti could grasp it. Muon? I've heard
neutron. You can tell him all he needs to know in one paragraph, so
why don't you do him that service? It's not enough just to be snotty.
John Polasek
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: Then, why do "scientists" insist on adhering to the idea of
a Big Bang, when the observed Universe isn't flying apart from a
central point in the middle? If you don't see a 'God' connection,
does that mean that you don't believe in the Big Bang? I hope not!
Thanks for your comments! -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
Your unwillingness to learn the basics makes me wonder why you even
bother posting.
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: "Tidal effects" are gravity related. Presently, those are
causing a slow change in the geometries and periods of the Earth-Moon
system. But the material compressions I was referring to are implied
by the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction factor, BETA. Those
compressions, so much a part of Einstein's supposed theories of
relativity, are VELOCITY induced. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Is that "laughing" with, or "laughing" at? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > None, but with atomic particles banging into the ether that then
> > clumps in front of the particles, as I have explained, often. Those
> > clocks--atomic or mechanical--slow because of being hit with ether.
>
> Slow with respect to what?
Dear Sam: Answer: Absolute TIME--which doesn't have arbitrary units.
Its only requirement is
u n i f o r m i t y independent of the mechanism of its recording.
>
> > And ether can restrain the decay of radioactive particles like muons.
>
> No evidence for such!
Yes, the evidence is there! It's the extended half lives of muons!
But the "association" that ether is the cause, rather than Einstein's
space-time conundrum has yet to be accepted. I am ether's #1
proponent! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: There is a difference between "agreed with" and "predicted
by". Einstein's theories closely "agree with" numbers of
observations, because the data supporting such tendencies was there
BEFORE he wrote his theories. That is like having a murder suspect
who "could" have committed the crime, then saying that because such
person "could" have done it; then he "did" do it! Scientists were
given only one "explanation" (suspect) that agreed with observation.
And because Einstein was so cute and studious, they (like the
prosecutors and jurors in "The Peterson Trial"). just accepted his
ideas without looking for any other SUSPECTS! That violates the
SCIENTIFIC METHOD (and justice!). Now, I am offering ETHER as another
more likely SUSPECT. Such is the actual cause--not just in fantasies--
of every one of those observed effects that Einstein had been more
than happy to take credit for. -- NoEinstein -- ;-)
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve: First, introduce yourself. If you are more than a chain-
puller, I will gladly answer specific questions. But I won't give out
biographies to stranger. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
> > errors in the texts, just because no one has enough self-confidence to
> > change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
> > are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
> > too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
>
> Bit hypocritical, don't you think? Outside of your own head,
> your theories can exist only in such an open forum as this.
Bryan: Nature doesn't need theories to make things work. If open fora
like this are below your dignity, why have you visited this one?
>
> How did you manage to invalidate the Michelson-Morley
> experiment and other Nobel-class results? Easy: You judged
> your stuff yourself. Serious journals have competent
> referees, so you work does not appear. No such standards
> here. As your own referee you score your gutter-balls as
> strikes and win every time.
To understand my disproofs, you should read my various posts. Yes, I
did these things by thinking for myself. Is that a problem?
Apparently, the majority of supposed scientists judge everything by
how well it complies with the status quo. I suspect that's the limit
of your knowledge of science. -- NoEinstein --
>
> --
> --Bryan
NoEinstein
> "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote in message
Sanders: I'm perfectly happy with 'God" being a woman. I call her
"Mother Nature"! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b38db0ac-5289-4d03...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 30, 6:20 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
> >> And exactly how is your theory in better accord with observation than the
> >> big-bang/inflation model?
>
> >> Bill
>
> > Because it is CORRECT! -- NoEinstein --
>
> That's it.
> Don't let the bastards wear you down.
Sanders: The TRUTH is a hard rock to wear down! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1baeea83-7256-49e7...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 29, 4:02 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> >> I think you're saying that for something to expand - it would have to go
> >> past a given point.
> >> And, conversely, for it to retract, to retract from a given point.
> >> In a Newtonian universe - yeah, that's what happens.
> >> Matter that expands beyond the Newtonian universe would have to go
> >> somewhere, right?
>
>>Sanders: No, what I'm saying is that the Universe isn't expanding at
>>all. Light ages, causing red shifts. The 'mechanism' of gravity
>>makes it incapable of drawing all of the matter together. Instead of
>>a Big Bang, there were a lot of 'Little Bangs'. Galaxies are the most
>>likely unit of 'creation'. In rare cases galaxies--as a result of
>>their formation dynamics, not due to gravity alone--can be drawn
>>together.
>
> Hehehe - trying to use tense and physical boundaries when defining
> multi-dimensional physics.
> A great way to go crazy, eh?
> It's so self-defeating, it'll cause you to think that galaxies are the
> source of the universe, instead of vice versa. ;)
Sanders: The finite Universe began as a bubble of ether; so ether is
the source of the galaxies and everything we know or observe. I have
never felt overwhelmed trying to understand anything that is true!
But I was overwhelmed trying to fathom Einstein; that's why I knew
that Einstein was WRONG! -- NoEinstein --
> That's why I think we *really* need a trans-dimensional liturgy developed.
> Latin symbols, "is-was" and "here-there" just don't cut it.
> They'll just drive ya mild.
>
> That's why I don't see it the way you do.
> It's not that I disagree with your conclusions; they're fine.
> It's just that I think you're asking the wrong question.
> You're trying to define the universe in times of height, width, depth and
> time - like any rational person would.
> That works fine - if you're trying to define just it's Newtonian subset of
> properties.
>
> But I think that to understand the *origin* of the universe, you need to
> consider it in the context of all other universes... non-Newtonian
> universes.
> That means taking the question beyond the 4 newtonian constraints - to what
> we percieve as "entropy".
Before you go considering that things are too complicated without
extra dimensions, let's try cleaning up science after the Dark Ages of
Einstein, and see how easy it is to begin to explain the "difficult".
-- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Then, they FAILED in their assessment; get real!
>
> > And considered the infinite number material sizes, shapes
> > and configurations.
>
> They did.
Then, they FAILED in their assessment; get real!
>
> > And they would have considered this: If the
> > rotating Earth has a continually varying velocity vector, then it too
> > would be constantly compressed and released; compressed and released.
>
> No it wouldn't.
Bill: Oh? You think that laws of physics apply only to the materials
and geometries of one experiment in a dusty basement of at CWRU? If
matter "contracts" due to velocity, all of the matter in the universe
would also have to contract due to velocity. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > (sic) But matter resists being compressed!
>
> Sure of that are we?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pressure
"For every action there is a an equal and opposite reaction." (I.
Newton) Bill, I won't chase after your wild goose. It's already
cooked. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > So... the Earth would
> > quickly slow, so that only one hemisphere points toward the Sun. Life
> > on Earth wouldn't exist if L & F's equation, Beta, is correct. Haa,
> > haa, hee
>
> Yes, the raucous of people laughing at you must be difficult be bear. To
> avoid it, engage brain before penning messages.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> > -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:17:00 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear John: There is a lot of posturing going on. Bill just demands
his space. I can't ignore the man, lest naive minds consider his
thoughts to be the last word. I like that you admire... to-the-point
answers. The apparent expansion of the Universe is due to aging of
light (red shifting) at greater distances. The Universe began as a
bubble of ether (energy) that slowly varied in density, became
entangled into larger and larger energy units; formed subatomic, then,
atomic particles; began to attract into stars; the stars clustered and
formed galaxies; and the galaxies dominated the ether so that
intergalactic gravitation is turned off. Such is our presently
observed, largely in equilibrium, Universe. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Eric: Because I attract so many science groupies... like you! --
NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
> ...intergalactic gravitation is turned off.
Supernovae data (distance derived from brightness and
velocity derived fror shifts in spectral lines) show
that gravitation does reduce the expansion rate over
time.... this gravitational breaking, weakening as the
universe expands has been overtaken by "dark energy"
which is increasing the expansion rate now.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Eric Gisse
Being a persistent idiot isn't an admirable trait. We just want you to
shut up.
Bill Hobba
Sure - things have moved on since their time - so?
>>
>> > And considered the infinite number material sizes, shapes
>> > and configurations.
>>
>> They did.
>
> Then, they FAILED in their assessment; get real!
Sure - things have moved on since their time - so?
>>
>> > And they would have considered this: If the
>> > rotating Earth has a continually varying velocity vector, then it too
>> > would be constantly compressed and released; compressed and released.
>>
>> No it wouldn't.
>
> Bill: Oh? You think that laws of physics apply only to the materials
> and geometries of one experiment in a dusty basement of at CWRU?
No.
> If
> matter "contracts" due to velocity
It doesn't. It is like rotating a rod to fit through a door - no
contraction involved.
Bill
Sam Wormley
No Center
Sam Wormley
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction factor is not local... whatever
gave you that idea?
Sam Wormley
Just <laughing> You may laugh with me if you like...
Sam Wormley
> On Dec 1, 1:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> NoEinstein wrote:
>>
>>> None, but with atomic particles banging into the ether that then
>>> clumps in front of the particles, as I have explained, often. Those
>>> clocks--atomic or mechanical--slow because of being hit with ether.
>> Slow with respect to what?
>
> Dear Sam: Answer: Absolute TIME--which doesn't have arbitrary units.
> Its only requirement is
> u n i f o r m i t y independent of the mechanism of its recording.
>>> And ether can restrain the decay of radioactive particles like muons.
>> No evidence for such!
>
> Yes, the evidence is there! It's the extended half lives of muons!
> But the "association" that ether is the cause, rather than Einstein's
> space-time conundrum has yet to be accepted. I am ether's #1
> proponent! -- NoEinstein --
<still laughing>
Sam Wormley
To date... observations agree with the predictions of relativity.
Sanders Kaufman
news:5b5938df-bf3e-4aa8...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Replying to a usenet posting with "shut up" is like walking down a dark
residential alley in the middle of the night, hollering at the dogs to "shut
up".
The ONLY expected outcome is failure.
Don't they teach that in the physics classes?
Sanders Kaufman
> On Dec 1, 8:53 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> Hehehe - trying to use tense and physical boundaries when defining
>> multi-dimensional physics.
>> A great way to go crazy, eh?
>> It's so self-defeating, it'll cause you to think that galaxies are the
>> source of the universe, instead of vice versa. ;)
>
> Sanders: The finite Universe began as a bubble of ether; so ether is
> the source of the galaxies and everything we know or observe. I have
> never felt overwhelmed trying to understand anything that is true!
That, of course, depends on your defintions of 'is' and 'began'.
I don't believe in such a *linear* theory of the origin of the universe.
> But I was overwhelmed trying to fathom Einstein; that's why I knew
> that Einstein was WRONG! -- NoEinstein --
I know you're obsessed with disproving Einstein.
That's cool for you; this is Usenet, after all.
But I'm more focused on the science, and not so much into celebrity-bashing.
Blathering like that to me is about as interesting as Birttney Spears
haircut.
Eric Gisse
Think he'd eat some hamburger with sleeping pills stuffed inside?
Eric Gisse
<bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:c402dc78-d02f-4ad9...@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 1, 8:53 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
>>> Hehehe - trying to use tense and physical boundaries when defining
>>> multi-dimensional physics.
>>> A great way to go crazy, eh?
>>> It's so self-defeating, it'll cause you to think that galaxies are the
>>> source of the universe, instead of vice versa. ;)
>>
>> Sanders: The finite Universe began as a bubble of ether; so ether is
>> the source of the galaxies and everything we know or observe. I have
>> never felt overwhelmed trying to understand anything that is true!
>
>That, of course, depends on your defintions of 'is' and 'began'.
>I don't believe in such a *linear* theory of the origin of the universe.
>
>
>> But I was overwhelmed trying to fathom Einstein; that's why I knew
>> that Einstein was WRONG! -- NoEinstein --
>
>I know you're obsessed with disproving Einstein.
What gave it away?
The idiotic 'noeinstein' handle *AND* signature, or the 'noeinstein'
email account?
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> NoEinstein wrote:
>>> Are you proud to be in a profession that tolerates so many
>>> errors in the texts, just because no one has enough self-confidence to
>>> change things that have been copied and recopied for decades? If you
>>> are a physics professor or teacher, state that up front. There are
>>> too many 'recreational physicists' commenting on these newsgroups. --
>> Bit hypocritical, don't you think? Outside of your own head,
>> your theories can exist only in such an open forum as this.
>
> Bryan: Nature doesn't need theories to make things work. If open fora
> like this are below your dignity, why have you visited this one?
No, no, you have me all wrong. I love these open forums.
Freedom of expression has been a great and important legal
concept for a long time, but only recently, with the rise
of the net, has the right of every individual to tell the
world his or her position been combined with the general
ability.
You crackpots have as much right as anyone to proclaim
your stance and make your case. Then when other ideas
triumph, it is not because yours were repressed.
>> How did you manage to invalidate the Michelson-Morley
>> experiment and other Nobel-class results? Easy: You judged
>> your stuff yourself. Serious journals have competent
>> referees, so you work does not appear. No such standards
>> here. As your own referee you score your gutter-balls as
>> strikes and win every time.
>
> To understand my disproofs, you should read my various posts.
I've read some, but not really for that reason. I understand
physics just well enough to know why your ideas would get a
big red 'X' through them in an undergrad physics course. I
have other sources for relativity. Here I study kooks.
You consider yourself a scientist. I consider you a specimen.
> Yes, I
> did these things by thinking for myself. Is that a problem?
> Apparently, the majority of supposed scientists judge everything by
> how well it complies with the status quo. I suspect that's the limit
> of your knowledge of science.
Go NoEinstein! Announce your suspicions and suppositions to
your heart's content, just as you proclaimed your self-assessed
invalidation of Nobel-prize-winning results in physics.
--
--Bryan
Jeckyl
news:pw55j.28026$JD.2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Well spoken.
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: You obviously read widely. There is a tendency to "reason
why" after observing any astronomical data. But I've surmised that
scientists' "reasoning why" ability, isn't on a par with their data
collecting ability. Since I believe that "the physics" of the
Universe is the same physics as here on Earth, then understanding the
Universe doesn't have to be done, exclusively, based on astronomical
observations.
Recently, the observed variation in the microwave background radiation
temperature--so necessary for the "formation dynamics" of the assumed
Big-Bang-originated Universe--has been found to be caused by exactly
matching concentrations of hydrogen gas, not at great distances, but
in our own Milky Way Galaxy. Some of those articles you reference say
that the microwave background is a "proof" of the Big Bang. It is
crucial that science continually "weed out" conjecture. But what
happens, too often, is that those articles continue to be passed
around as if they are fully valid.
To get around this... disparity in information, I decided that I would
re think the entire Universe based on the DATA, not on anyone else's
"reasoning why" ability, nor their credentials, to explain such.
That's why I'm not "big" on reading other people's ideas, that always
seem heaped with controversy. Correct science should be so obvious,
once presented, that no arguments are needed. But our habits of
clinging to the status quo, and arguing about things, die hard...
I do appreciate your offering links. Please continue to do so. But
if it isn't too much trouble, could you write about two sentences
explaining the "meat" of each of those articles? Thanks for letting
your wheels turn over some of my issues. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric: You are a persistent groupie. Please, go away! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Bill: If rotating a rod to fit through a door is your analogy of
how the Lorentz-FitzGerald contracting factor, Beta, supposedly
"corrects" the length of the light paths in M-M; then, why would
Einstein say that all matter contracts to zero thickness at velocity
'c'? Does having a very wide door cause the proportions of objects to
change, without a compression being involved? Just for the record,
linear velocity causes ZERO compression in any object (Sorry,
Einstein.) Acceleration of the acceleration can compress objects, and
theoretically would compress any object to zero thickness at velocity
'c', IF there was enough energy in the universe to do it; and IF the
"a. of the a." never abated, for even a second, to allow the elastic
rebound of the material to cancel the accrued compression.
Einstein, the moron, didn't know the difference between "a. of the
a.", and simple acceleration. The latter linear increase in velocity
causes only a single-value compressive force. The acceleration due to
gravity, 'g' is: 32.174 feet per second EACH second (NOT per second,
or ...per sec.^2). Because Einstein saw the definition of 'g'
written ...per sec. ^2; and because Coriolis wrote his formula KE =
1/2mv^2; and because Newton equations were often "square" functions,
Einstein decided to consider that the forces on accelerating objects
increase exponentially, too (sic). So far, the depth of your
reasoning ability is on a par with Einstein's; congratulations! Do
you see how science got to be in such a mess? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Where did I say L-F is local... ? If L-F was a law of
nature, then it would have to be universal. So, the Earth would be
subject to both an Earth-Moon tidal compression and a velocity
compress (sic). But because I have invalidated M-M, L-F isn't needed
to explain the 'nil' results of anything. And L-F wouldn't explain it
anyway, because light makes two back and forth passes over all but the
first leg of each light course in M-M. What that means is: The stone
base on which M-M was mounted would have to "contract" for the light
ray that is slowed (by 'ether drag' (sic), or due to the emitter
source light or mirror slowing); and it would, simultaneously, have to
"expand" to correct for light speeded beyond velocity 'c' due to the
added velocity of the Earth ('c' + v). Because L-F 'accounts for'
only compression, it was quite convenient for those men to ignore even
the possibility that light can exceed 'c'. By so doing, they violate
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that demands that alternative explanations be
considered, and multiple experiments (different) be done.
My 'guess' is that you are enjoying having me explain things. Because
others can learn something, I don't mind doing that. :-) --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hahaahee! Laughing is fun! And it helps get rid of stress. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam: Yes, there are other proponents of ether theory. I call myself
#1 as a 'short' way of making that exclamation. Do you agree with me
on anything? Or are you having enough laughs just by sitting on a
fence? -- NoEinstein --