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: Peter Webb on 7 Jun 2010 03:24 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:671f196a-5e2c-4ddf-b4b9-7a8545862830(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > He was quoting a piece from Fermi Lab. This is a well known and highly prestigious institution that is describing well known physics. If you disagree with it, that makes you the crank, not him. >> > 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 > That doesn't explain how SR and GR does not enter the design of the GPS. It does not talk about the design of GPS units at all. That GPS units are designed using SR and GR, and would not work accurately if this was not the case, is a matter of public record. >> > 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> > Umm, I don't think anybody is interested in understanding your own views of physics. >> > 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> > Gee, you should ring up the manufacturers and users of particle accelerators and tell them they that could not possibly work. And the administrators of the GPS system, to similarly tell them that the GPS system could not possibly work. And the astronomers who use SR in their work, or examine the secondary debris from cosmic rays, and tell them that could not possibly be seeing the particles they record because they would have decayed before reaching the ground. And the people who have directly tested SR and GR in a wide range of experiments, including those as simple as putting atomic clocks on airplanes and directly measuring the time dilation. You might also ring up some airplane pilots who have flown around the world, and hence have proof that the earth is not flat. Or do you accept that the earth is not flat, even though this is counter-intuitive? >> Tell us why gold is yellow. > > It is yellow because it reflects only the yellow wavelength of light? > <shrug>
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 05:53 On Jun 7, 4:13 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: [...] > > Manufacturing controversy to get viewer ratings and sell books is what > it is all about. > The sad thing is that basic SR could now be understood > by bright secondary school students if it was taught properly. It is much easier to reach all the points on a two dimensional chalk board than the 3D variety and much easier to grade tests of 2D formalisms than 3D concepts. The easily tested 2D course material that emphasises motion rather than superposition can leave the student wondering how big an infinitely thin container has to be, to hold any water. The brightest conclude, correctly, neither the container nor the course material will hold water. *Proficiency* with integral calculus is not really required to understand how *volumes* of space have to be considered to superposition Coulomb fields or lawn sprinklers. But a modest grasp, at least at the pictorial level is essential. A bright secondary school student can certainly follow the 3D concepts, even if not the rigour and intimidating squiggles of this sort of explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications And that is half way to <<... a position to understand electromagnetism at its most fundamental level.>> "Time-dependent Maxwell's equations" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html Sue... [...] > > > Regards, > Martin Brown
From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 08:45 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:13 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > [...] >> >> Manufacturing controversy to get viewer ratings and sell books is what >> it is all about. > > >> The sad thing is that basic SR could now be understood >> by bright secondary school students if it was taught properly. > > It is much easier to reach all the points on a two dimensional > chalk board than the 3D variety and much easier to grade tests > of 2D formalisms than 3D concepts. > > The easily tested 2D course material that emphasises motion rather > than superposition can leave the student wondering > how big an infinitely thin container What is your definition of "infinitely thin"? Less than the average diameter of a water molecule? Does that infinitely thin container have statistical fluctuations in its thiness as a function of distance along its dimensions? has to be, to hold any water. > The brightest conclude, correctly, neither the container nor > the course material will hold water. Hmmmm... "...course material will hold water?" > *Proficiency* with integral calculus is not really required > to understand how *volumes* of space have to be considered > to superposition Coulomb fields or lawn sprinklers. But > a modest grasp, at least at the pictorial level is essential. > > A bright secondary school student I hate to interupt this post, but a bigger problem is what to do about the non-bright students. can certainly follow > the 3D concepts, even if not the rigour and intimidating > squiggles of this sort of explanation: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications > > And that is half way to <<... a position to understand > electromagnetism at its most fundamental level.>> > "Time-dependent Maxwell's equations" > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > Sue... > > > [...] >> > >> >> Regards, >> Martin Brown > >
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 10:57 On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, "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. That would be me, if you'll track the attribution headers. My estimation of the reviewers is based on the profoundly poor understanding they have about relativity, which is pretty easy to point out. > > 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. A couple of comments about that. - This newsgroup is in no way a microcosm or representative sample of the scientific community, let alone physics. This is a hobbyist group, visited by a few people with training and expertise, but otherwise populated by amateurs and interested parties, which also includes hacks, cranks, nuts, and disaffected and angry engineers. - How would you KNOW if a reviewer was familiar with relativity based on the review? Would you expect a reviewer to say up front, "I know nothing about this subject, but want to bluff my way through a review anyway"? > > 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've done this for you. > > 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_? As for your "reviews": //////////////////////////////////////// ================================================== Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? by, Tom Bethell Review.... That a book by a great and established writer like Tom Bethell, who is a long-time science writer and political columnist at The American Spectator, hasn't been officially reviewed yet, says more about those who pose as the intellectual and editorial guardians of literature than it does about the quality of this book or the stature of its author. In fact, it is an engaging, well researched book about one of the most interesting paradigm struggles of the twentieth century (and still ongoing today). That Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) was influenced by and made quickly popular by the relativistic ideologies of its time (1905) seems to this writer a foregone conclusion. But it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to detect a "luminiferous ether," which gave SR scientific credibility. ------------------------------- PD: This is in fact a historical error. The credibility for SR came from *other* predictions made by relativity, not the *postdiction* cited, where those other predictions were put to direct experimental test. ------------------------------- But Michelson himself soon doubted its conclusions and proved it in the later Michelson-Gale experiment which did detect an ether. ------------------------------- PD: This is again an error. There has been no experimental result that has detected an ether. Period. ------------------------------- H. Lorentz, a contemporary of Einstein, and a scientist of equal stature, argued in numerous debates with Einstein that all "relativistic effects" (such as the bending of starlight as it passes near the sun) were the result of light traveling through an "entrained ether" which surrounds and moves with planetary bodies--otherwise known as the gravitational field. Other well-known physicists of the day also doubted the veracity of SR, especially its principle of space-time distortion. ------------------------------------ PD: It is certainly true that Lorentz believed in an entrained ether, and there is a large class of experiments that are consistent with that result. However, there are other results that are not. For example, the boundary of entrainment would introduce an aberration from stellar sources with a periodicity associated with the movement of the entraining Earth that is simply not seen. Furthermore, relativity makes predictions in domains that Lorentz ether theory does not touch -- such as the covariance of fundamental interactions other than the electrodynamic. Lorentz believed that ALL interactions were fundamentally electrodynamic, but we have discovered after his death that this is clearly ruled out. ------------------------------------ A few were: Herbert Dingle, whose "paradox" asked the question of which "clock" would run slow (and thus experience time dilation predicted by SR) of two relativistic travelers; as for example two rocket ships in different inertial frames (i.e., going at different speeds relative to each other). Another physicist, H. Ives, of the famous Ives-Stillwell experiment to test the Doppler effect of fast moving mesons, became a lifelong enemy of Einstein because he felt that his results were being misinterpreted. And there were many others who disagreed with Einstein's fundamental conclusions. Even Einstein himself, as Bethell points out, later in life admitted that forces propagating through empty space without a medium in which they could be conveyed, was a logical absurdity--a fact never mentioned in textbooks, or in other "easy Einstein" books. ---------------------------- PD: There were lots of things that Einstein was wrong about. For example, he believed strongly in the principle of locality, which would say that quantum entanglement is impossible. He in fact proposed the experiment that proved him wrong. ---------------------------- In the later part of the twentieth century, other scientific critics picked up where Lorentz and his contemporaries had left off. Among them were Tom Van Flandern, Carver Mead, and Petr Beckmann. Bethell concentrates on Beckmann's critique, written in a technical book called Einstein Plus Two, in which the author claims that all the effects of both Special and General Relativity can be explained using classical physics. Bethell brings Beckmann's book down to earth from the arcane heights of Mt. Olympus by rendering Beckmann's mathematical descriptions understandable to the layman. ------------------------------ PD: All three of these people have led long careers on the outskirts of science, refusing to respond to the criticisms about the holes in their physics and their analysis. ------------------------------ If you are interested in the history of one of the most pivotal scientific ideas of our time, if you have always believed that the world should make sense but would still like to know about the mysteries of relativity, this book may be for you. And this reviewer might add that although Bethell might not know it yet, this may be his most significant book. ===================================================== Shall I go on?
From: Koobee Wublee on 7 Jun 2010 12:30
On Jun 7, 12:24 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > He was quoting a piece from Fermi Lab. This is a well known and highly > prestigious institution that is describing well known physics. When challenged with that handwaving bullshit, he chose to place his tail between his legs and run away. <shrgu> > If you disagree with it, that makes you the crank, not him. These claims were unfounded. <shrug> Do you know how to derive the following equation without throwing that bullshit and convoluted derivation around? ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > 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/603e5223dd3... > > That doesn't explain how SR and GR does not enter the design of the GPS. It > does not talk about the design of GPS units at all. So, obviously you do not know what are the pertinent issues at hand in the GPS. <shrug> > That GPS units are designed using SR and GR, and would not work accurately > if this was not the case, is a matter of public record. I have shown you how the GPS functions without the nonsense of SR or GR. You are a troll, and I have no patience with one. I tend to ignore trolls and the ones who are totally ignorant. So, do not whine about me running away, OK? > > 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> > > Umm, I don't think anybody is interested in understanding your own views of > physics. I don't expect the trolls, the ignorant, most of the self-styled physicists, and all Einstein Dingleberries would. <shrug> > > 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> > > Gee, you should ring up the manufacturers and users of particle accelerators > and tell them they that could not possibly work. What good would that do? > And the administrators of > the GPS system, to similarly tell them that the GPS system could not > possibly work. Well, GPS works without the nonsense of SR or GR. Why should I do a stupid thing like you have suggested? > And the astronomers who use SR in their work, What astronomers? > or examine the > secondary debris from cosmic rays, What secondary debris? What is the first debris? > and tell them that could not possibly be > seeing the particles they record because they would have decayed before > reaching the ground. Oh, that! Gee! Don't be stupid enough to think SR is the only one that can explain all that. <shrug> > And the people who have directly tested SR and GR in a > wide range of experiments, including those as simple as putting atomic > clocks on airplanes and directly measuring the time dilation. The mutual time dilation that manifests the twin's paradox has never been observed. All observations have indicated an absolute simultaneity. All observations have challenged SR and GR. I have addressed all that in the past. <shrug> > You might also ring up some airplane pilots who have flown around the world, > and hence have proof that the earth is not flat. Why do you have a hard on on flat earth stuff? > Or do you accept that the > earth is not flat, even though this is counter-intuitive? Just place your tail between your legs and run away instead of avoiding the subject of discussion, will you? |