Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him [Relativity]

Prev: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: Ohm's Law and Maxwell on Relativity !

From: mpc755 on 4 Jun 2010 12:59

What physically occurs in nature to cause curved 'space-time', E=mc^2,
conservation of mass, conservation of energy, gravity, double slit
experiments, Higg's background field, what physically occurs in nature
to cause atomic clocks to 'tick' at different rates, Einstein's train
gedanken, and on and on and on the list of things which are
misunderstood in physics today are easily understood with the theory
of Aether Displacement.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
aether's state of displacement.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
The material is mæther.
Mæther has mass.
Aether and matter have mass.
Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther.
Aether is displaced by matter.
The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'.
The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether.
Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The
C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters
and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon
exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule
travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether
wave and there is not interference.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
By A. EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.

Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the
mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The
physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter
and aether is energy.

The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy.

Mass is conserved.

The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
"result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth" causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground."
(quoted text from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).

'The Need to Understand Mass'
By Roger Cashmore
Department of Physics
University of Oxford, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

"There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this
problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that
the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to
the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel
through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what
appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces
felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the
interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear
to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg's
hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles."

The "action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any
thick liquid" is the particles interaction with the aether. The force
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.
The "thick liquid" is the aether behaving as a frictionless superfluid
'one something'.

"the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more
mass they appear to have." The faster the particle moves with respect
to the aether, the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced
aether towards the particle.

'Politics, Solid State and the Higgs'
By David Miller
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College, London, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs3.htm

"1. The Higgs Mechanism
In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is
the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background
field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle
moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around
the particle - generates the particle's mass. The idea comes directly
from the physics of solids. Instead of a field spread throughout all
space a solid contains a lattice of positively charged crystal atoms.
When an electron moves through the lattice the atoms are attracted to
it, causing the electron's effective mass to be as much as 40 times
bigger than the mass of a free electron."

The distortion of the background field is the displacement of the
aether by the moving particle. The 'clustering' of the field around
the particle is the 'displacing back'. The 'clustering' of the field
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.

"The idea comes directly from the physics of solids." The aether
behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'.

From: mpc755 on 4 Jun 2010 13:19

From: Peter Webb on 4 Jun 2010 20:47

I would appreciate all those with BS, MS, and PhD degrees, plus
publications, in physics/engineering/science please step forward and give
their credentials and experience.

________________________________________

Why?

If your argument is that Relativity is wrong, your first step is producing
an experimental result which clearly contradicts it.

Having some kind of straw-poll of the professional qualifications of people
in a Usenet newsgroup is a completely useless way of determining the truth
of a scientific theory.

So, have you got some kind of experimental evidence that shows a problem
with Relativity?

From: Me, ...again! on 4 Jun 2010 22:59

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:

>>
>> I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: The
>> myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in which
>> it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with
>> "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I thought
>> that was a good point.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> It is hardly relevant to Einstein; he is not one of "today's physicists" (he
> died over 50 years ago), and his theories explain reality beautifully.
>
> That is probably why everybody has heard of Einstein, but very few
> non-physicists could name a single string theorist.

I'll name Lindley's book (which I read cover to cover) as one that
discusses string theory/theorists, and I'll name Thom (?) Horgan's book
"The End of Science" (also cover-to-cover) as an interesting overview of
where physics is or maybe is not going in terms of major areas of "beautiful
theory" physics. And, it sure looks like big particle accellerator
progress stoped with the LHC in, where, Switzerland? Anything else, newer
or bigger, on the drawing board? I haven't heard of it.

>

From: Peter Webb on 4 Jun 2010 23:14

"Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006042118500.26482(a)osmium.mv.net...
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>>
>> I would appreciate all those with BS, MS, and PhD degrees, plus
>> publications, in physics/engineering/science please step forward and give
>> their credentials and experience.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Why?
>
> I gave my background. I asked anyone else who can make reference to their
> own qualifications, experience, and background "in" science and in a
> professional-career capacity.
>
>> If your argument is that Relativity is wrong,
>
> _I_ never said that. What I said was "experts doubt E/R" and that is not
> the same as "its wrong".
>
> your first step is producing an
>> experimental result which clearly contradicts it.
>
> I produced a list of books by various authors who explained their
> particular form of doubt.
>

Ohhh. So you have no experimental reason whatsoever to doubt Relativity.

Is your only reason to do so is that there are lots of books on Amazon which
claim that Relativity may be false?

If so, do you also believe that Atlantis may have existed for exactly the
same reason - there are lots of books on Amazon that claim it was real?

>> Having some kind of straw-poll of the professional qualifications of
>> people in a Usenet newsgroup is a completely useless way of determining
>> the truth of a scientific theory.
>
> Oh, I would like to know what kind of qualifications, experience, or
> credentials any of the guys here have.
>
> Why all the _resistance_ to my question?
>

Because its completely irrelevant to the argument.

>> So, have you got some kind of experimental evidence that shows a problem
>> with Relativity?
>
> I've explained quite a bit up to now.
>

So the answer to that question is "no". You have no experimental evidence
that Relativity is incorrect.

Your only evidence is that lots of books on Amazon say its a possibility.
But you don't know why.

I guess you believe in Atlantis as well, for exactly the same reasons.

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: Ohm's Law and Maxwell on Relativity !