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: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 21:15 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > 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. I've been in science long enough to know that disciples of schools of thought usually dig in their heels on whatever they decide. Before I say more, I'll say I need to review the whole field myself and evaluate it after that review. >> >> >> >>>> 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 21:23 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message news:7IXOn.29680$Zg1.20142(a)newsfe10.ams2... > > "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. > > The electron is weighed every time one is accelerated in a particle accelerator. If they had zero mass, they would take zero energy to accelerate. Their mass is easily worked out by seeing how much energy is required to accelerate them to their measured speed, and from knowledge of their electric charge (which can be determined independently). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron HTH
From: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 22:17 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > > I've been in science long enough to know that disciples of schools of > thought usually dig in their heels on whatever they decide. Before I say > more, I'll say I need to review the whole field myself and evaluate it > after that review. > > _______________________________________ > While you are at it, you should review the evidence that the earth is not > flat. I accept all the photographs made from various locations miles above the surface that show curvature increasing as one goes up. Get back to us when you have reached a conclusion. However > counter-intuitive it may be to you, the earth is basically round and objects > at high relative speed behave as predicted by SR. But review the literature > yourself and make your own decision. I would like to do that, but I also have more interesting pursuits, too. > >
From: alien8er on 6 Jun 2010 22:34 On Jun 6, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 1:31 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Laugh this off: > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ > > The paper is sprouting with more lies, more mysticisms, and more > nonsense. Typical unfounded assertions. > How GPS works requires no relativistic effect from SR or GR. However, > if considered, they can be very easily implemented. The author > obviously does not know what is at stake. <laughter> Nor do you. There is *nothing* "at stake". > The following equation can never be derived from SR. One can only do > so from the geodesic equations. > > ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > Also, the equation does not exist from the redefinition of mass > suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <more > laughter> > > There is just way too much bullshit in that short article. <ROTFL> I see you are apparently incapable of shifting your focus. Tell us why gold is yellow. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Koobee Wublee on 7 Jun 2010 00:40
On Jun 6, 7:34 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ > > > The paper is sprouting with more lies, more mysticisms, and more > > nonsense. > > Typical unfounded assertions. Run away, you little crank. > > How GPS works requires no relativistic effect from SR or GR. However, > > if considered, they can be very easily implemented. The author > > obviously does not know what is at stake. <laughter> > > Nor do you. There is *nothing* "at stake". I have explained so many times over how either SR or GR does not enter the design of the GPS. The following is the most recent post. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603e5223dd3b0401?hl=en > > The following equation can never be derived from SR. One can only do > > so from the geodesic equations. > > > ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) So, you have agreed, or do you not really understood how that equation is derived? Well, there are such infinite transforms besides the Lorentz transform that explains the null results of the MXX. All these transforms yield the same above equation through the geodesic approach. Do you understand what I am saying or not? If you don't, we have nothing to discuss. <shrug> > > Also, the equation does not exist from the redefinition of mass > > suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <more > > laughter> > > > There is just way too much bullshit in that short article. <ROTFL> > > I see you are apparently incapable of shifting your focus. I am not interested in discussing topics that I am not interested at this moment, but I can tell you that any hypotheses based on either or both SR and GR are utterly bullshit as yours truly has taking time to explain thoroughly both the fallacies in SR and GR. <shrug> > Tell us why gold is yellow. It is yellow because it reflects only the yellow wavelength of light? <shrug> |