Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 14:02 yeah; "A=Mcc" -- ba-doomp! > Gravity, Double Slit Experiments, E=mc^2, Einstein's train gedanken > are all easily understood once you realize aether and matter are > different states of the same material and aether is displaced by matter. thusNso: the curvature of space was proven (with the aid of "synchronized clocks" with a friend at another locale on teh same meridian) by Aristarchus; later, it was measured by Gauss on Alsace-Lorraine for France, using his theodolite. now, what could be simpler? thusNso: what is a vacuum?... are you referring to Pascal's dyscovery of an absolute plenum in the barometer? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A&A...356L..53B > Perhaps you don't know what a vacuum is thusNso: I'd like to hear more about Halliburton's engineering; is this really a Dark Art?... following, about a popular and superefficient use of oil. Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they certainly don't last very long.) As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 16:24 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an >>> brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle >>> tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as >>> the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the >>> Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the >>> Earth? >> >>> Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother >>> being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the >>> brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? >> >>> Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the >>> whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic >>> clocks tick at the same rate. >> >> Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and >> things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and >> chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, >> then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is >> correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G >> environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% >> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >> artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% >> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >> cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% >> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on >> lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in >> lunacy land. >> > > The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the > rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on > the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the > Earth. > > You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and > the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both > sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic > clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the > other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the > rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the > atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not > think. What happened to the interpretation that the brother on earth, along with all the rest of the solar system can be thought of as going "the other way" at speed, S, and the brother on the spaceship as being, considered, as motionless, so the brother on the earth is really going to age slower? >> >> >>> One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many >>> times an atomic clock ticks. >> >> Search for posts > >
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 16:27 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an >>>> brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle >>>> tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as >>>> the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the >>>> Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the >>>> Earth? >> >>>> Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother >>>> being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the >>>> brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? >> >>>> Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the >>>> whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic >>>> clocks tick at the same rate. >> >>> Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and >>> things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and >>> chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, >>> then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is >>> correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G >>> environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% >>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >>> artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% >>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >>> cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% >>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on >>> lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in >>> lunacy land. >> >> The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the >> rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on >> the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the >> Earth. >> >> You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and >> the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both >> sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic >> clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the >> other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the >> rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the >> atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not >> think. > > Sure it will have an effect. But there will also be an effect that is > due to relativity, and this can be separated from other effects. > > This is a simple experimental analysis skill that just about any > scientist learns. > For example, if you are trying to find out if smoking shortens > lifespan, you may also find that your smokers also drink alcohol, or > that their hair is a little longer, or that they live in sunnier > climates, and you may wonder if those factors also contribute to a > shorter life span. It is the task of the experimenter to understand > how to separate out the contribution that is JUST due to smoking. This > is not that hard. Yes, this is the classic case of the "correlation does not prove causality" interpretation. And, yet, in complex systems (eg. biology) there is still a vast majority of papers showing no more than "correlations" and even bad correlations at that. As I have said many times: It is very very hard to do a good study. > If you don't have any idea how this is done, then perhaps you should > get a little bit of training. > >> >> >> >>>> One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many >>>> times an atomic clock ticks. >> >>> Search for posts >> >> > >
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 16:32 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > On Jun 3, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 3, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an >>>>> brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle >>>>> tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as >>>>> the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the >>>>> Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the >>>>> Earth? >> >>>>> Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother >>>>> being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the >>>>> brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? >> >>>>> Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the >>>>> whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic >>>>> clocks tick at the same rate. >> >>>> Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and >>>> things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and >>>> chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, >>>> then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is >>>> correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G >>>> environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% >>>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >>>> artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% >>>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that >>>> cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% >>>> (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on >>>> lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in >>>> lunacy land. >> >>> The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the >>> rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on >>> the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the >>> Earth. >> >>> You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and >>> the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both >>> sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic >>> clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the >>> other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the >>> rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the >>> atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not >>> think. >> >> Sure it will have an effect. But there will also be an effect that is >> due to relativity, and this can be separated from other effects. >> >> This is a simple experimental analysis skill that just about any >> scientist learns. >> For example, if you are trying to find out if smoking shortens >> lifespan, you may also find that your smokers also drink alcohol, or >> that their hair is a little longer, or that they live in sunnier >> climates, and you may wonder if those factors also contribute to a >> shorter life span. It is the task of the experimenter to understand >> how to separate out the contribution that is JUST due to smoking. This >> is not that hard. >> >> If you don't have any idea how this is done, then perhaps you should >> get a little bit of training. >> > > And what scientists also do is perform experiments, such as detecting > the particle at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment to > see if the particle exits one, or both, slits. This was discussed in the book I cited: "Understanding Quantum Physics" by Michael Morrison. When experiment after > experiment is performed and the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a > single slit, scientists, who are not under the delusional effects of > the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, conclude > this is experimental evidence the particle always exits a single slit. There is an important caveat however: that the process of probing the particles position and presence exiting the slit has the effect of disturbing the motion of the particle (this is also very nicely discussed, and referenced in the cited book), and complicates the interpretation of the results. > Scientists also realize to conclude a C-60 molecule can enter, travel > through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit > experiment without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > change in momentum is physically impossible. The book I cited had something to say about that, too. > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM has nothing to do with the physics > of nature. It is made up absurd nonsense which only exists in the > minds of those too weak to understand the true nature of physics. All schools of thought depend on some interpretation. It is crucial to making conclusions. >> >> >>>>> One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many >>>>> times an atomic clock ticks. >> >>>> Search for posts >> >> > >
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 16:43
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, J.H.Boersema wrote: > On 2010-06-02, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> SR was built on a mathematical mistake by Poincare, and that had >>>> nothing to do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >>>> <shrug> GR was built on a man-made mathematical icon created by Ricci/ >>>> Levi-Civita, and that also had nothing to do with Einstein the same >>>> nitwit, the same plagiarist, and the same liar. <shrug> >>> >>>> That represented the first time that plagiarism was awarded with a >>>> Nobel Prize. <shrug. >>> >>>> So far, Planck's work in which Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, >>>> and the liar plagiarized seem to be working for all observations so >>>> far. <shrug> >>> >>>> Happy worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >>> >>> You haven't answered my question. >> >> Yes, I have. See the above quoted text. <shrug> >> >>> I understand that you don't believe in Relativity as explained by Einstein. >> >> It is not that I believe in or not believe in. Study of science is >> not about believe in. <shrug> >> >> Relativity was already explained by Galileo. So, a regurgitation of >> the so-called explanation to pass has its own counts as plagiarism. >> Your hero Einstein was in reality a mere nitwit, a mere plagiarist, >> and a mere liar. The nitwit was nobody. <shrug> >> >>> What I want to know is whether you also believe his explanation of the >>> photo-electric effect and the dynamics of Brownian motion are correct. >> >> Again, your argument is totally based on belief in which I don?t do so >> in science. <shrug> >> >>> So? >> >> <shrug> > > These days will probably live in infamy in the future, heroes and > villains will be remembered (correctly) in the end, one would hope. > But that day seems far off: just today I was making conversation trying > to let others share in the fun that in Qinhuangdao (large city near > Peking, Heibei) where also working against the Big Lie of physics and > making progress. But the people I talked to started defending The Lie ! > Did they know even that relativity is about light speed ? Nope. Did they > know what Michelson/Morley experiment was ? Nope. Did they know anything ? > I guess they knew that the media had instructed them to believe The Lie. > Then they started asking me what the scientific method was, at first I > thought they where wondering about the old liar Einstein. But they where > asking me. Maybe Marxism? > The people are COMPLETELY controlled by the media. It is almost like one > of those movies, the body snatchers, milder version but still. > > It would be a big joke if it didn't mean that these sheeple are not > ready for democracy, and that you get tyranny and war without democracy. > I guess this can only one thing: the bosses of the world rule this world > at will, no problem (the money power). This means tehre will be another > big war, they merely ahve to trumpet some lies through the media and hte > sheeple will order in lines for the slaughter and cheering on their own > demise ... If I understand you, then I'm affraid you might be right. > Yes, it is that bad. > > No, it will be worse then ever (my guess). > > Dig in while you can, the sheeple are going to the slaughter once more. > In fact one of them doubted that wars where still fought to distract the > sheeple ... do the math, buy what you can while your money has value. > If you haven't already. The sheeple have no brain, the elites have said > there are too many sheeple for them to effectively control, and since > they already said so and agreed to do something about it perhaps, I guess > i can safely say that I have to agree. You can't run a tyranny with this > many people, even if most / all of them are idiots. It is the sad truth. > If tehy where smarter we could easily live on this world with 20 billion > I guess, it isn't a capacity problem but a problem for central control, > that's all (combined with limitless greed by those in control, a system > run on greed needs more room per person I guess, and more of a natural > buffer.) I worry about these things, too. I did read the rest, below. Thanks. > Since the people are still idolators, my guess is the enemy is going to > launch their strategic culling in not too distant future, probably our > lifetimes. You've been warned. Remember it when it happens. It seems the > ultimate target isn't geo-strategic now, it is the peoples themselves, > culling the herd. It makes too much sense to ignore it. I say to the > sheeple: do my program and get rid of the money power, or you may well > end up dead by that power. The way is there, it isn't too hard at all. > Merely a matter of getting off that lazy behind. > > Sheesh, amazing. A routine operation to defunct credibility to test > whether there is intelligence on the planet actually fell through. They > really *are* idolators, and only so. Amazing. Einstein and the golden > ... bull, are some of their gods. Guess where the stock exchange is > located ? In an actual Greek temple 'where the gods lived.' There is > nothing allegorical about it, the money power is litterally their god, > in the building that they call by its shape the 'house of a god' a > temple. > > You think this is modern times ? Think again, we are deep down in the > idiosyncratic deep history ... Has someone been fiddling with the > timewarp machine again ? (sigh) ;) > -- > _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy, > \ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly. > /_\_#_#_/_\ > \ / Day 37 of the revolution. > |