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: Sue... on 6 Jun 2010 17:18 On Jun 6, 4:51 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2:40 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > ============= > > >>> Once I could derive the Einstein-Lorentz equations from the basic axioms I > >>> was happy that the things did exactly what was claimed. > > > =============== > > >> Well, my positions is that I need to do something like that before I can > >> be happy as you became happy. > > > Simply use a modern derivation: http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 > > > ...And modern statements: > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > > same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > > same in all inertial frames. >> > > So, if my inertial frame is going to the left at the speed of light, and > we launch a beam of photos to the right from that inertial frame, then > some photons might drop into my paper bag like marbles? AFAIK the material offered has no reference to photons. You indicated some dislike of popularised and introductory material. I am all for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Modern_view http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/ > > I'll give you a return wink ( ;-) ) in advance. (wink, wink) > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > ...And ignore all the objective answers to your subjective question > > because the writers can't have done much reading. ;-) > > All the reading I did recently was of what those writers of responses > said. All I was looking for was what I got: a spectrum of responses. > > I'm happy to report that I think none of them were brain-dead. Perhaps all > of them were also pretty opinionated, too. > > Thank you for the other material. You are quite welcome. I think you will find you can retain most of your common sense if you decide to spend some time with it. But modern electromagnetism is not a quick study. Sue... > > > Sue... > > >> Until then, my position is that there are > >> two schools of thought and YOU, the reader or anyone else, needs to be > >> aware of the counter-arguments and be prepared to defend YOUR position > >> (because THEY are certanly defending the counter-position). > > >>> Martin Brown > >
From: PD on 6 Jun 2010 17:54 On Jun 5, 3:23 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > On Jun 4, 7:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, papar...(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. > > > I have a PhD in physics and a publication record in experimental > > particle physics. There, happy? > > Yes, thank you. > > > > > > >> 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". > > > I've offered to give you commentary on the reviews you listed. > > Thank you for that, too. Actually, I would like to either review them > myself and/or see a committee of reviewers write one good review of the > controversy between the two camps (the "believers" and the "doubters") I don't think there is a tangible, clear, identifiable controversy. There are lots of reasons why the doubters doubt. Or why they try to cast doubt anyway. Just a few: 1. They have this notion that folks lauded as revolutionary thinkers should not rely in any way on the work of others, and that they should produce a new theory from whole cloth and in complete form. If they don't, then they shouldn't be lauded any more than any of the other contributors to the field. 2. They honestly believe that a theory should appeal to ordinary, common-sense intuition, and that if it doesn't, then this is a sign that something is wrong, regardless of the experimental verification. 3. They honestly believe that the theory is buttressed solely by argument, logic, and "gedanken experiments", so that an effective way to counter the theory is to provide the same in a different direction. > > > > >> 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 6 Jun 2010 19:20 > > Note for example, that guys like pal "Peter Webb" > automatically negate anything Hitler did or said > such as the facts he expressed in the following speeches, > because he was "anti-Semitic". > > SPEECH OF JUNE 22, 1941 > You probably all felt that this was a bitter and difficult step for me. > The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of > Russia. So, now you quote Hitler as evidence that Relativity is wrong ... quite funny really.
From: blackhead on 6 Jun 2010 20:53 On 6 June, 17:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:TPOOn.139774$0M5.58866(a)newsfe07.iad... > | On 04/06/2010 20:59, Me, ...again! wrote: > | > > | > > | > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: > | > > | >> On 04/06/2010 03:24, Me, ...again! wrote: > | >>> > | >>> > | > | >> There is a real beauty in saying that the laws of physics are the same > | >> for all observers in an inertial reference frame. > | > > | > I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: > | > The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in > | > which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with > | > "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I > | > thought that was a good point. > | > | OTOH beautiful theories that fit all the observations and have survived > | all the experimental tests so far are now on very solid foundations. > > Yep, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly, it has survived all the > experimental tests so far are and is now on very solid foundations. > Pity that relativity failed the MMX test, the Sagnac test, the nova > test, the cepheid test, the rocket test, all of which NM passed with > flying colours. > Pity you didn't pass the bigotry test, Brown. The Kaufman experiments showed that the mass of an electron depends upon its velocity, which isn't a part of Newtonian mechanics. Interestingly, they initially seemed to show that Abraham's expression for the mass of an electron with velocity was correct, Einsten/ Lorentz's incorrect. It wasn't until later when the experiment was reanalyzed that the result was shown not be be accurate enough to distinguish between the two theories. Larry
From: Androcles on 6 Jun 2010 21:12
"blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:5ec49219-1d94-4119-adb8-c7f9d2b10acb(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... | On 6 June, 17:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: | > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message | > | > news:TPOOn.139774$0M5.58866(a)newsfe07.iad... | > | On 04/06/2010 20:59, Me, ...again! wrote: | > | > | > | > | > | > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: | > | > | > | >> On 04/06/2010 03:24, Me, ...again! wrote: | > | >>> | > | >>> | > | | > | >> There is a real beauty in saying that the laws of physics are the same | > | >> for all observers in an inertial reference frame. | > | > | > | > I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: | > | > The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in | > | > which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with | > | > "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I | > | > thought that was a good point. | > | | > | OTOH beautiful theories that fit all the observations and have survived | > | all the experimental tests so far are now on very solid foundations. | > | > Yep, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly, it has survived all the | > experimental tests so far are and is now on very solid foundations. | > Pity that relativity failed the MMX test, the Sagnac test, the nova | > test, the cepheid test, the rocket test, all of which NM passed with | > flying colours. | > Pity you didn't pass the bigotry test, Brown. | | The Kaufman experiments showed that the mass of an electron Prove that an electron has mass. Go ahead, weigh one. Weigh a bucketful and count them, then subtract the weight of the bucket and divide by the number of electrons. Or do it your own way, but PROVE it has mass. Don't just assume it, you'll end up finding canals on Mars if you assume they are there. http://michaelgr.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mars-canals-003.jpg Percival Lowell did and they named an observatory for him, so he had to be right. Right? Pity you didn't pass the bigotry test, Larry Harson. |