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: Androcles on 2 Jun 2010 09:09 "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:XKrNn.80185$rE4.67200(a)newsfe15.iad... | If you can demonstrate an experiment where SR or GR makes an incorrect | prediction then do so and quit whining. | | Regards, | Martin Brown If you can demonstrate an experiment where SR or GR makes an correct prediction different from Newtonian Mechanics then do so and quit your ignorant fuckin' bigotry and whining. Disregards, Androcles.
From: J.H.Boersema on 2 Jun 2010 09:10 On 2010-06-02, Me, ...again! <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote: > 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. > > I would suggest that you read at least two or three of the anti-Einstein > books if you are seriously interested in what is going on there. > > My own interest, now in my retirement, is globalization economics; and of > course there is an important controversy there, too. Are economists > scientists or not. And, the opinions and data on that are all over the > spectrum. But, the world economy is very sick right now and I consider > that as more important than relativity. [...] Economics is a science, but economists are not scientists, but mere fodder for the Great racket, aka capitalism. You can read all about exactly that on my site too, and more importantly what to do about that. I read you are retired, ex-scientist: the people on people like you to do some of the thinking for them, while they are at the wheel. It is your responsibility for sake of your (apparent) intelligence. The issues are ultimately quite simple. I'll briefly recap for your convenience: - Trade works by competition driving prices to 'equal effort.' (Standard theory, is correct. So far for the science part of official economics ...) - For that to work, you can't have power concentrations that will translate into unfair prices. Dominating supply is a power position, aka monopoly. But owning vast amounts of soil, a passive power, is also bad. When managerial power gets concentrated in an 'old boys club' passing each other the ball (job market, supply cartel), they get rich, and the nation goes to hell. - Critically: money investment is most profitable where company profit is highest, right ? Cost are lowest. That means: where tyrannical management squeezes labor until the brink of rebellion or death. That's just the economics of it, and these are not laughing matters. People have died over this for millenia, and they still do, or suffer like hell for it. The power position of all must be roughly the same, 4 measures (imho) needed: - Absolutely democratic Government, so that each has their share of sovereign power. - Companies should be democracies as well, to equalize that power in the business to all. - Investment capital for businesses must get a different motive, no longer profit (see above rule), but "whatever the people say," so that means business investment gets attached to state democracy, but that national, provincial and/or local. It is important to do this right (many small funds, highly controlled and transparent), and not wrong (massive corrupt Government banks full of cronyism and self-enrichment). - Distribution of the economic valuable soil, to each a part, you can rent it out but never lose it. For short I call this a D.A.V.I.D. economy, short for Democratic Authorities, - Ventures, - Investments, - Demarcations. Caveat with Authorities and nations, getting to your global economic problem issue: a nation is already vast, Holland is a vast, vast, vast nation. No Dutchmen has ever seen all of Holland. It is ... staggering. Never mind such humongous nations such as Brittain or France, etc etc. To have any form of Democracy, the authorities need to be under close watch. All of Holland, despite its size, can be in the capital in hours. That does not happen in the EU anymore, etc etc, complexity of the empire is too big, and we don't even need Imperial Government anyways. The people don't want war, only the bosses do. Once the people rule, they rarely if ever vote for war. The people are our hope. So ... teh nation must be fully sovereign, and that includes the economy. No more global businesses. Global trade: yes. Global finance, international finance, internaitonal businesses: NO, NO, NO. End, made illegal henceforth. Each nation would attempt to achieve true sovereingty, having all the industries they can have. Long term: in a globally specialized economy you get cartels and monopolies all the same, entire continents played over prices, even war may erupt who knows. Everything does pear shaped, especially with the scum that will rule it. No meaningful democracy on that scale is possible, thus you guess what will happen ... How to get this done ? I designed 9 schemes to do this, all worked out in great detail: http://www.socialism.nl/post/002/110-summary (b) There are 8 schemes of increasing intensity: 0: saying the truth, science 1: buying fair trade 2: funds that make businesses democratic 3: minority political parties 4: erecting the new Government, first sub-sovereign [warning] 5: (para)military uprising to defend free speech & free assembly 6: military conquest & voting a new nation into sovereignty 7: small independent cell resistance 8: individual ambush The people are at the wheel, counting on us. You and I are here, now what ? This is not a joke and it is not an excercize. -- _ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy, \ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly. /_\_#_#_/_\ \ / Day 36 of the revolution.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Jun 2010 10:22 "Me, ...again!" <arthures(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?
From: J.H.Boersema on 2 Jun 2010 10:32 On 2010-06-02, Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Me, ...again!" <arthures(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? How many atheists get a standing in the catholic church for being a Bishop or Cardinal, or perhaps a pope ? To graduate you have to take the poison first, I know that for a fact because they tried to teach the relativity in the very first year, never mind that it is supposedly the most difficult theory that exists ... why would that be ? My guess: to cull those who might be critical soon. Do I guess correctly that to become a priest or even pass through the first year of study for catholic priest, you have to at least once claim to believe in the anti-christ jesus ? How many Bishops or Cardinals succesfully opposed the catholic dogma over the millenia ? My guess is, none, and the few that did where no match for the contra weight and FINANCIAL interests of those who didn't and attempt to keep that cult alive (for profit I guess, profit and power). > 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?
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 10:48
On Jun 1, 6:59 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/06/2010 09:30, hanson wrote: > > > "Einstein was right?" yields 148,000 Google hits, posted by > > Aether = quantum vacuum. > Plus, if the equations governing the aether are the same as STR and GTR, > what's the point? Do any aether theories predict neutron star slow-down > and time dilation in a gravitational field to the same accuracy? > > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UK > http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show With aether, the physics of nature are easily understood. 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. "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. 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). |