Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Virtual light never seen
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Jun 2010 16:10 On 02/06/2010 21:07, blackhead wrote: > On 2 June, 06:05, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!"<arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: >>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and >>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. >> >>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect >>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which >>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which >>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? >> >>>> Was he wrong about them as well? >> >>> Was Einstein right or wrong? >> >>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. >>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, >>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. >> >> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is >> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years >> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any >> credibility. >> >> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- >> Einstein school of thought feel that way. >> Some candidate ideas: >> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and >> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it >> cannot possibly be considered right. >> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which >> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem >> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a >> symptom of that problem. >> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to >> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. >> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and >> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. >> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary >> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. >> >> Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although > it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: > > The Comparative reception of relativity By Thomas F. Glick. > > The people who criticize it nowadays possess the same mindset as those > of 100 years ago, because they're studying it from the original > sources. It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the > original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by > studying his M�canique analytique. The subject has evolved enormously > over the intervening years and there is no need to get lost in the > confusion of the past when today, people have cut away the brambles to > create a clear path. Yet, still these people first read the original > papers of Eisntein, Lorentz, Michleson Morely and try to seek out > something wrong with the original conclusions. > > Speaking for myself, I still find the predictions of SR to be > outrageous such as relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, Lorentz > contraction, equivalence of mass and energy, relativistic mass etc. > Yet it's backed up by modern experimental evidence and so it would be > foolish of me to reject it at first sight without first trying to > study it from a modern view point and then criticizing it. I still > have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by > its power. > > Larry c = const is all that is needed. The maths follows. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Jun 2010 18:05 On 02/06/2010 22:38, Androcles wrote: > > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:86ns65Fje9U5(a)mid.individual.net... > | On 02/06/2010 21:07, blackhead wrote: > |> On 2 June, 06:05, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > |>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!"<arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > |>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special > and > |>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > |>> > |>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric > effect > |>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and > for which > |>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion > (which > |>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > |>> > |>>>> Was he wrong about them as well? > |>> > |>>> Was Einstein right or wrong? > |>> > |>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, > vs. > |>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of > noise, > |>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > |>> > |>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > |>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > |>> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > |>> credibility. > |>> > |>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > |>> Einstein school of thought feel that way. > |>> Some candidate ideas: > |>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > |>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > |>> cannot possibly be considered right. > |>> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > |>> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > |>> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > |>> symptom of that problem. > |>> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > |>> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > |>> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > |>> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. > |>> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > |>> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > |>> > |>> Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - > |>> > |>> - Show quoted text - > |> > |> Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although > |> it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: > |> > |> The Comparative reception of relativity By Thomas F. Glick. > |> > |> The people who criticize it nowadays possess the same mindset as those > |> of 100 years ago, because they're studying it from the original > |> sources. It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the > |> original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by > |> studying his M�canique analytique. The subject has evolved enormously > |> over the intervening years and there is no need to get lost in the > |> confusion of the past when today, people have cut away the brambles to > |> create a clear path. Yet, still these people first read the original > |> papers of Eisntein, Lorentz, Michleson Morely and try to seek out > |> something wrong with the original conclusions. > |> > |> Speaking for myself, I still find the predictions of SR to be > |> outrageous such as relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, Lorentz > |> contraction, equivalence of mass and energy, relativistic mass etc. > |> Yet it's backed up by modern experimental evidence and so it would be > |> foolish of me to reject it at first sight without first trying to > |> study it from a modern view point and then criticizing it. I still > |> have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by > |> its power. > |> > |> Larry > | > | c = const is all that is needed. > | The maths follows. > > Assertion carries no weight. > c' = c+v Not if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Jun 2010 19:44 On 02/06/2010 23:17, mpc755 wrote: > On Jun 2, 6:05 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 02/06/2010 22:38, Androcles wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:86ns65Fje9U5(a)mid.individual.net... >>> | On 02/06/2010 21:07, blackhead wrote: >>> |> On 2 June, 06:05, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> |>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!"<arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>> |>> >>> |>> >>> |>> >>> |>> >>> |>> >>> |>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: >>> |>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special >>> and >>> |>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. >>> |>> >>> |>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric >>> effect >>> |>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and >>> for which >>> |>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion >>> (which >>> |>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? >>> |>> >>> |>>>> Was he wrong about them as well? >>> |>> >>> |>>> Was Einstein right or wrong? >>> |>> >>> |>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, >>> vs. >>> |>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of >>> noise, >>> |>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. >>> |>> >>> |>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is >>> |>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years >>> |>> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any >>> |>> credibility. >>> |>> >>> |>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- >>> |>> Einstein school of thought feel that way. >>> |>> Some candidate ideas: >>> |>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and >>> |>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it >>> |>> cannot possibly be considered right. >>> |>> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which >>> |>> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem >>> |>> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a >>> |>> symptom of that problem. >>> |>> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to >>> |>> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. >>> |>> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and >>> |>> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. >>> |>> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary >>> |>> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. >>> |>> >>> |>> Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - >>> |>> >>> |>> - Show quoted text - >>> |> >>> |> Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although >>> |> it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: >>> |> >>> |> The Comparative reception of relativity By Thomas F. Glick. >>> |> >>> |> The people who criticize it nowadays possess the same mindset as those >>> |> of 100 years ago, because they're studying it from the original >>> |> sources. It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the >>> |> original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by >>> |> studying his M�canique analytique. The subject has evolved enormously >>> |> over the intervening years and there is no need to get lost in the >>> |> confusion of the past when today, people have cut away the brambles to >>> |> create a clear path. Yet, still these people first read the original >>> |> papers of Eisntein, Lorentz, Michleson Morely and try to seek out >>> |> something wrong with the original conclusions. >>> |> >>> |> Speaking for myself, I still find the predictions of SR to be >>> |> outrageous such as relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, Lorentz >>> |> contraction, equivalence of mass and energy, relativistic mass etc. >>> |> Yet it's backed up by modern experimental evidence and so it would be >>> |> foolish of me to reject it at first sight without first trying to >>> |> study it from a modern view point and then criticizing it. I still >>> |> have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by >>> |> its power. >>> |> >>> |> Larry >>> | >>> | c = const is all that is needed. >>> | The maths follows. >> >>> Assertion carries no weight. >>> c' = c+v >> >> Not if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames >> >> -- >> Dirk >> >> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show > > The speed of light is measured to be 'c' in all inertial frames. > > "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" > - Albert Einstein > > 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. > > In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is determined by > its connections with the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest > with respect to the embankment than it is the train. > > The Observers on the train synchronize three clocks at M'. One > Observer walks a clock to A' and the other walks a clock to B'. When > the Observer walks the clock to A' the clock is being walked with the > 'flow' of aether and ticks faster. The clock walked to B' is being > walked against the 'flow' of aether and ticks slower. > > Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at the Observer at > M on the embankment simultaneously. > > When the lightning strikes occur on the train the clocks at A', M', > and B' read 12:00:03, 12:00:02, and 12:00:01, respectively. > > The light from B' reaches the Observer at M' prior to the light from > A'. When the Observers on the train get back together they conclude > the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at > A/A' and the light traveled at 'c'. If the equations are the same the "what REALLY happens" is just philosophy or religion. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Jun 2010 19:45 On 02/06/2010 23:27, Androcles wrote: > > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:86o2t0Fv34U1(a)mid.individual.net... > | On 02/06/2010 22:38, Androcles wrote: > |> > |> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > |> news:86ns65Fje9U5(a)mid.individual.net... > |> | On 02/06/2010 21:07, blackhead wrote: > |> |> On 2 June, 06:05, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > |> |>> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!"<arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > |> |>> > |> |>> > |> |>> > |> |>> > |> |>> > |> |>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > |> |>>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's > Special > |> and > |> |>>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > |> |>> > |> |>>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric > |> effect > |> |>>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, > and > |> for which > |> |>>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian > motion > |> (which > |> |>>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > |> |>> > |> |>>>> Was he wrong about them as well? > |> |>> > |> |>>> Was Einstein right or wrong? > |> |>> > |> |>>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did > something, > |> vs. > |> |>>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of > |> noise, > |> |>>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > |> |>> > |> |>> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there > is > |> |>> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > |> |>> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > |> |>> credibility. > |> |>> > |> |>> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the > anti- > |> |>> Einstein school of thought feel that way. > |> |>> Some candidate ideas: > |> |>> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, > and > |> |>> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > |> |>> cannot possibly be considered right. > |> |>> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > |> |>> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > |> |>> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > |> |>> symptom of that problem. > |> |>> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > |> |>> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > |> |>> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, > and > |> |>> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as > right. > |> |>> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the > contrary > |> |>> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > |> |>> > |> |>> Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - > |> |>> > |> |>> - Show quoted text - > |> |> > |> |> Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, > although > |> |> it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: > |> |> > |> |> The Comparative reception of relativity By Thomas F. Glick. > |> |> > |> |> The people who criticize it nowadays possess the same mindset as > those > |> |> of 100 years ago, because they're studying it from the original > |> |> sources. It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the > |> |> original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by > |> |> studying his M�canique analytique. The subject has evolved > enormously > |> |> over the intervening years and there is no need to get lost in the > |> |> confusion of the past when today, people have cut away the brambles > to > |> |> create a clear path. Yet, still these people first read the original > |> |> papers of Eisntein, Lorentz, Michleson Morely and try to seek out > |> |> something wrong with the original conclusions. > |> |> > |> |> Speaking for myself, I still find the predictions of SR to be > |> |> outrageous such as relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, > Lorentz > |> |> contraction, equivalence of mass and energy, relativistic mass etc. > |> |> Yet it's backed up by modern experimental evidence and so it would > be > |> |> foolish of me to reject it at first sight without first trying to > |> |> study it from a modern view point and then criticizing it. I still > |> |> have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed > by > |> |> its power. > |> |> > |> |> Larry > |> | > |> | c = const is all that is needed. > |> | The maths follows. > |> > |> Assertion carries no weight. > |> c' = c+v > | > | Not if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames > | > > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that > > x'/(c-v) = t" --Albert Fuckwit Einstein. > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif > > Someone needs to make up their stupid fuckin' mind, don't you? Someone needs a modern physics course. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Peter Webb on 3 Jun 2010 21:03
"Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006031600100.17232(a)osmium.mv.net... > > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> On 03/06/2010 12:28, Me, ...again! wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >>>> wrote: >>>>> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that. >>>>> >>>>> > It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and >>>>> read/learned > from >>>>> > classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with >>>>> > authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics. >>>>> >>>>> > I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a >>>>> lot > of >>>>> > very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject >>>>> > are >>>>> > trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention >>>>> than he >>>>> > deserves. >>>>> >>>>> Who? >>>>> >>>>> Some other nutter? >>>>> >>>>> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that >>>>> Einstein >>>>> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to >>>>> physics? >>>>> >>>>> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation >>>>> of >>>>> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would >>>>> know that >>>>> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum >>>>> mechanics. >>>>> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in >>>>> a >>>>> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion >>>>> created the >>>>> field of statistical mechanics. >>>>> >>>>> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he >>>>> deserves, >>>>> wouldn't you agree? >>>> >>>> AE won the Nobel Prize for >>>> >>>> He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to >>>> Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of >>>> the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia >>>> >>>> Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong >>>> or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the >>>> fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a >>>> change to which will require millions of years of scientific >>>> evolution. >>>> >>>> ___________________________ >>>> >>>> The question was whether he received too much credit for those >>>> discoveries. Given that almost nobody outside the physics community >>>> knows about his huge contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and >>>> other parts of physics I think the answer is pretty obviously "no". >>>> Einstein clearly receives too little credit for the work he did >>>> outside of Relativity theory. >>>> >>>> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to >>>> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his >>>> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, >>>> after all. >>> >>> The simplest response I could give was what I did do. In response to >>> what looked like too much credit, I listed the books written by other >>> experts who doubted Einstein. I found more books than I thought I would >>> find. >> >> I've found even more on alien abductions and Atlantis > > But I'll bet a smaller fraction of people "believe in" alien abductions, > etc., than Einstein/Relativity. > That's probably why counting the number of books on a subject (be it that SR is wrong, or that Atlantis existed) is no way of deciding the truth. However, wasn't listing a large number of books that dispute SR *your* idea? And now you seem to agree that its a useless way of determining the truth of a scientific theory? And as the *only* criticism of SR that you have made is the fact there are lots of books that dispute it, doesn't this undermine your entire argument? Are you going to prove next week that Atlantis existed, by providing a giant list of books that claim it to be so? And the week after, are you going to prove the biblical story of genesis is correct by pointing out the large number of books that claim it to be true? Counting books on Amazon is a completely brain dead way of deciding the truth of a physical theory. There is no correlation between the number of books published on a subject and its scientific truth. Unfortunately, this is the only evidence that you have provided that SR is false, and its no evidence at all ... so unless you have some experimental result that contradicts SR, you have *nothing*. |