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: paparios on 4 Jun 2010 21:02 On 4 jun, 20:37, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, papar...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > 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. > Well, I'm a PhD in EE and I'm active in telecommunication networks research (my last paper was published in February on one IEEE journal). I'm also a professor of EE since 1977. I'm here only as a guy with interest in SR and QM. I know nothing about GR but I hope to learn it before I die. > 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". > Well, what I have done is read lots of books, in order to learn about these subjects. I have several books on physics and SR, GR and QM, but for sure I'm not even near to have read all of them. Regarding your references, for sure they are a waste for those of us who want to learn the subjects in a systematic way. One of your references mentions Tom Van Flandern. He was a guy with a PhD in Physics, who worked for Nasa and then lost his way by turning to some funny theories, like the EPH (where he thought the asteroid belt was originally a planet which exploded). He then lost credibility by endorsing some wacko thoughts on the origins of the "Face" feature on Mars. So you see, just by reading about any book where this guy is mentioned, I would be very concerned on its value. > 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: Me, ...again! on 4 Jun 2010 21:23 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. > 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? > So, have you got some kind of experimental evidence that shows a problem with > Relativity? I've explained quite a bit up to now. > >
From: Me, ...again! on 4 Jun 2010 21:34 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, paparios(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 4 jun, 20:37, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, papar...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> > > Well, I'm a PhD in EE and I'm active in telecommunication networks > research (my last paper was published in February on one IEEE > journal). I'm also a professor of EE since 1977. Hey, great, I'm pleased to meet you. I got my PhD in '77. > I'm here only as a guy with interest in SR and QM. I know nothing > about GR but I hope to learn it before I die. Since I retired, I've "gone into" history. So I'm now an amateur historian. It opened my eyes to a whole new, different, and overwhelming world of scholarly study. It does not take long to learn that you can't learn any history by reading just one book. You have to read at least 2-3, and learn all the biases, different interpretations, missing information, controversial sides, etc., .... and that made me give attention to the comparable problem in E/SR/GR: that there was a larger dissenting opinion that I originally thought. >> 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". >> > > Well, what I have done is read lots of books, in order to learn about > these subjects. That is really excellent of you. I have several books on physics and SR, GR and QM, but > for sure I'm not even near to have read all of them. Regarding your > references, for sure they are a waste for those of us who want to > learn the subjects in a systematic way. Well, I got out one recent QM book in my library and re-read the wave-particle duality chapter and you certainly can't talk about that in just a few sentences (and I'd still like to get all of the reprints, etc., out on a big table and really spend half a year digesting it myself). > One of your references mentions Tom Van Flandern. He was a guy with a > PhD in Physics, who worked for Nasa and then lost his way by turning > to some funny theories, like the EPH (where he thought the asteroid > belt was originally a planet which exploded). He then lost credibility > by endorsing some wacko thoughts on the origins of the "Face" feature > on Mars. > So you see, just by reading about any book where this guy is > mentioned, I would be very concerned on its value. Well, I appreciate the wisdom of your suggestion. Still, it _might_ be a bad idea to throw all of the guy out the window just because some of his ideas are trash. Also, I've been involved in behind-the-door controversies in the specialization I was in and it gets very complicated, lots of competitors out there, and not always nice behaviors, either. But, I got my grants, and got my papers in peer-reviewed journals. >> 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: mpc755 on 4 Jun 2010 23:30 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: hanson on 5 Jun 2010 00:53
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: "Wrong" > hanson wrote: Yes, you are, zaidi, wrong as always. So, don't run after me like a hungry K�ter who is chocking on his Matzo balls. Go see for my comments in my concurrent post, wherein you came to the rescue of your bro-in-ilk, poster Martin Brown Shirt.... --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |