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: Koobee Wublee on 5 Jun 2010 22:41 On Jun 5, 6:31 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > A better question would be "what is the difference between the 'principle of > Relativity' and the 'theory of Relativity'" ? <laughter> > In brief, the 'principle of Relativity' (eg what Galileo sort-of > articulated) is that inertial reference frames are indistinguishable by > experiments conducted within them, whereas the 'theory of Relativity' (eg > what Einstein developed) is an extensive mathematical theory that explains > (amongst many other things) time dilation, the nature of gravity, etc etc. What else? Length contraction? Gee! You don't know what you are talking about. The tell-tale sign is "the nature of gravity". <more laughter> > But really, if you want to know what the difference is between what Galileo > said about "relativity" and what Einstin said, SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare's part in rewriting Larmor's Lorentz transform. See the link below. It has nothing to do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > you will need to study some > basic physics, something you are obviously disinclined to do. You are so drunk with the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. On top of that, you don't even know what SR represents. How can you give any advices? How can you judge anyone? <yet more laughter>
From: Koobee Wublee on 5 Jun 2010 23:05 On Jun 2, 1:07 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, It is rightly so since after 100 years, it is shown to be a mathematical mistake on Poincare's part by none other than the ever so humble Kooblee Wublee. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > although > it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: It shows *leading* physicists can be very *misleading* in fact. After all, Poincare was not a light weight physicist. <shrug> > 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. I don't think this applies to yours truly the ever so humble Koobee Wublee. <shrug> > It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the > original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by > studying his Mécanique analytique. These are just stupid remarks since mathematics is ageless. <shrug> > 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. This is total nonsense. In the engineering world, when a mistake is discovered, it must be traced back to several generations of designs to find the problem and thus a cure. If the author represents all self-styled physicists, this tells me the self-styled physicists don't care about the that actual physics itself, but how to defend the traditional beliefs. <shrug> > 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. Come one. You don't have to go back that far. Not all are so clueless as the self-styled physicists. <shrug> > 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. That is very unscientific. <shrug> > 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. So, I take it that you never questioned the interpretations to the data of these experiments that attempt to continue to worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. <shrug> > I still > have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by > its power. The more you are intoxicated in the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the more you will be mystified by these mathemagical powers of SR and GR nonsense. <shrug>
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jun 2010 04:08 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:25ad91c5-6d75-4bdc-9f22-86315263605f(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 6:31 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > >> A better question would be "what is the difference between the 'principle >> of >> Relativity' and the 'theory of Relativity'" ? > > <laughter> > >> In brief, the 'principle of Relativity' (eg what Galileo sort-of >> articulated) is that inertial reference frames are indistinguishable by >> experiments conducted within them, whereas the 'theory of Relativity' (eg >> what Einstein developed) is an extensive mathematical theory that >> explains >> (amongst many other things) time dilation, the nature of gravity, etc >> etc. > > What else? Length contraction? > Yes, length contraction. For the rest, like I said learn some basic physics. > Gee! You don't know what you are talking about. The tell-tale sign > is "the nature of gravity". <more laughter> > Einstein provided an esssentially geometric explanation of gravity. >> But really, if you want to know what the difference is between what >> Galileo >> said about "relativity" and what Einstin said, > > SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare's part in rewriting Larmor's > Lorentz transform. I thought you said that the theory of Relativity was devised hundreds of years before Einstein, by Galileo ? At least get your crank story straight.
From: nuny on 6 Jun 2010 04:31 On Jun 5, 7:41 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 6:31 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > > > A better question would be "what is the difference between the 'principle of > > Relativity' and the 'theory of Relativity'" ? > > <laughter> > > > In brief, the 'principle of Relativity' (eg what Galileo sort-of > > articulated) is that inertial reference frames are indistinguishable by > > experiments conducted within them, whereas the 'theory of Relativity' (eg > > what Einstein developed) is an extensive mathematical theory that explains > > (amongst many other things) time dilation, the nature of gravity, etc etc. > > What else? Length contraction? > > Gee! You don't know what you are talking about. The tell-tale sign > is "the nature of gravity". <more laughter> Laugh this off: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ Mark L. Fergerson
From: Martin Brown on 6 Jun 2010 10:07
On 04/06/2010 21:12, Me, ...again! wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: > >> For that to work you have to know enough about the subject be able to >> distinguish who are the experts and the ever present netkooks. What >> you have posted so far and your "methodology" suggests that you cannot. > > Well, you and I are in disagreement. > >> There may be others like Hilbert and Ricci who should get more public >> credit for their contributions (particularly on the mathematics) but >> Einstein brought it all together and provided the inspired physical >> interpretation. Nothing that any of these deranged nutters says can >> alter the fact that every experiment to date has confirmed the theory. > > Namecalling is not legitamate refutation. EVERY EXPERIMENT TO DATE HAS CONFIRMED THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Show me an experiment that refutes either SR or GR predictions and then I will consider alternatives that can better explain the observations. Until that time comes we have a working theory that can be used to make *TESTABLE* predictions and do engineering for high energy physics. It is too bad that you cannot understand relativity but you do not seem to be putting in any effort to do so. Regards, Martin Brown |