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: mpc755 on 4 Jun 2010 17:15 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 in 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 no 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: Me, ...again! on 4 Jun 2010 19:30 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > On Jun 3, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 3, 6:28 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> >> I'm not quite sure what you're after here. It kind of sounds like >> you'd like to know if there is a response to these reviews. >> I can tell you that the authors of the reviews themselves are clearly >> neither active scientists nor familiar with relativity. But I don't >> know if that matters to you or not. Would a detailed rebuttal of the >> reviews of books make a difference? > > Any response to this? > > I would like to know which reviews he was referring to, what made him think they were neither active scientists or familiar with relativity. Many popular writers -- it is true-- are not active scientists and may not be as deeply familiar with relativity, but the reviews I read suggested that the reviewers were no less familiar than many if not most of the authors of posts on these NGs. And, I'm still waiting for anyone who-- besides myself--has been reading any of the posts of these threads to say who he is, what his credentials are, what his job and/or school is, and what kind of recognition he has gotten between now and back when he first got on the net. I have said, many times now, that I am a retired scientist (in membrane biophysics) with a PhD in biology, BS in physics, some 35 papers in peer-reviewed journals, $1 mil in competitive research grants from NIH, ONR, gave invited papers and invited seminars (all expenses paid) in several countries outside the USA, dozens of book chapters in books, on editorial boards of several books, sole editor for one book, retired (1996) from a "research professor" faculty appointment at Univ Maryland at Baltimore, School of Medicine, Departments of Biophysics and Pathology. Oh, yes, I've done paid consulting work, too. What are all of you guys _doing_?
From: paparios on 4 Jun 2010 19:45 On 4 jun, 19:30, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > On Jun 3, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 3, 6:28 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >> I'm not quite sure what you're after here. It kind of sounds like > >> you'd like to know if there is a response to these reviews. > >> I can tell you that the authors of the reviews themselves are clearly > >> neither active scientists nor familiar with relativity. But I don't > >> know if that matters to you or not. Would a detailed rebuttal of the > >> reviews of books make a difference? > > > Any response to this? > > I would like to know which reviews he was referring to, what made him > think they were neither active scientists or familiar with relativity. > > Many popular writers -- it is true-- are not active scientists and may not > be as deeply familiar with relativity, but the reviews I read suggested > that the reviewers were no less familiar than many if not most of the > authors of posts on these NGs. > > And, I'm still waiting for anyone who-- besides myself--has been reading > any of the posts of these threads to say who he is, what his credentials > are, what his job and/or school is, and what kind of recognition he has > gotten between now and back when he first got on the net. > > I have said, many times now, that I am a retired scientist (in membrane > biophysics) with a PhD in biology, BS in physics, some 35 papers in > peer-reviewed journals, $1 mil in competitive research grants from NIH, > ONR, gave invited papers and invited seminars (all expenses paid) in several > countries outside the USA, dozens of book chapters in books, on editorial > boards of several books, sole editor for one book, retired (1996) from a > "research professor" faculty appointment at Univ Maryland at Baltimore, > School of Medicine, Departments of Biophysics and Pathology. > > Oh, yes, I've done paid consulting work, too. > > What are all of you guys _doing_? You can check the profile label of each post for details of some of the posters. But the main problem here is that you are clearly mistaken if you think that here there are lots of people with physics backgrounds. The real number is quite low (PD, Tom Roberts, Paul Andersen, Steve Carlip and a very few others). The rest is divided in amateurs with some education in physics, a lot of engineers and a large number of trolls, wackos and people that should be at a mental institution instead of writing here. So if you think that here you will find some answers, better look somewhere else. Miguel Rios
From: Me, ...again! on 4 Jun 2010 20:37 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, paparios(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 4 jun, 19:30, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >>> On Jun 3, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 3, 6:28 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> >>>> I'm not quite sure what you're after here. It kind of sounds like >>>> you'd like to know if there is a response to these reviews. >>>> I can tell you that the authors of the reviews themselves are clearly >>>> neither active scientists nor familiar with relativity. But I don't >>>> know if that matters to you or not. Would a detailed rebuttal of the >>>> reviews of books make a difference? >> >>> Any response to this? >> >> I would like to know which reviews he was referring to, what made him >> think they were neither active scientists or familiar with relativity. >> >> Many popular writers -- it is true-- are not active scientists and may not >> be as deeply familiar with relativity, but the reviews I read suggested >> that the reviewers were no less familiar than many if not most of the >> authors of posts on these NGs. >> >> And, I'm still waiting for anyone who-- besides myself--has been reading >> any of the posts of these threads to say who he is, what his credentials >> are, what his job and/or school is, and what kind of recognition he has >> gotten between now and back when he first got on the net. >> >> I have said, many times now, that I am a retired scientist (in membrane >> biophysics) with a PhD in biology, BS in physics, some 35 papers in >> peer-reviewed journals, $1 mil in competitive research grants from NIH, >> ONR, gave invited papers and invited seminars (all expenses paid) in several >> countries outside the USA, dozens of book chapters in books, on editorial >> boards of several books, sole editor for one book, retired (1996) from a >> "research professor" faculty appointment at Univ Maryland at Baltimore, >> School of Medicine, Departments of Biophysics and Pathology. >> >> Oh, yes, I've done paid consulting work, too. >> >> What are all of you guys _doing_? > > You can check the profile label of each post for details of some of > the posters. But the main problem here is that you are clearly > mistaken if you think that here there are lots of people with physics > backgrounds. The real number is quite low (PD, Tom Roberts, Paul > Andersen, Steve Carlip and a very few others). 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. The rest is divided in > amateurs with some education in physics, a lot of engineers and a > large number of trolls, wackos and people that should be at a mental > institution instead of writing here. I've been on NGs for over 20 years. I'm pretty aware of the less credible and less creditable types. > So if you think that here you will find some answers, better look > somewhere else. I was mainly looking to see how many of the "regulars" would respond to the listing of about two dozen books dealing with "shortcomings" in Einstein rather than "nothing but praise". As I said, when I was young and in college taking my undergraduate advanced physics courses, I "bought into" Einstein like everyone else but was aware of anti-Einstein sentiments but dismissed them as "wacko" stuff. Now, decades later, I find it interesting that there is still a lot of dissent and doubt. I was curious how the "regulars" would respond to the challenge. Perhaps someday I will try to locate the better of the dissenters and teach myself more about the "contrarian" line of thinking as well as the "conventional mainstream" thinking. Thank you for your overview estimate of the population "quality". I feel similarly. > Miguel Rios >
From: Peter Webb on 4 Jun 2010 20:51
> So since the Zios in your land have muzzled you effectively, Yeah. Relativity is a Zionist plot. Those satellites that we think use Relativity to provide accurate GPS locations are actually remote controlling our brains to make us *think* that GPS satellites work. |