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 10 Jun 2010 01:43 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1bdeedbd-2a39-48d6-91df-86e313feedb6(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 10, 1:36 am, "Peter Webb" [...] > > SR has been tested in hundreds of different ways by thousands of people. > Are > you aware of any experimental evidence at all that SR is wrong? << 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 r�le 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. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... _______________________________ And your point is ... ?
From: nuny on 10 Jun 2010 08:02 On Jun 9, 5:28 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 2:20 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 9, 12:37 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Physics with math is philosophy. In physics, there is the valid and > > > the invalid; in philosophy, there is no right and no wrong. <shrug> > > > Screw philosophy; I'm talking phenomenology. You can twist things up > > with math any way you want them to go, but phenomena will expose > > trickery every time. > > It does not matter how you want to contort it. Physics with math is > philosophy. <shrug> > > > > So, am I correct? Gold absorbs all wavelengths of life except > > > yellow. There is why it appears to be yellow. <shrug> > > > No, you are wrong. > > You are indeed a crank. Take a hike. You also apparently cannot read. Gold does not "absorbs all wavelengths of life [sic] except yellow". Mark L. Fergerson
From: whoever on 10 Jun 2010 22:52 "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:4c119bda(a)news.x-privat.org... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4c0f2493$0$28655$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> news:4c0f2065$1(a)news.x-privat.org... >>> >>> "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 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 >>> >>> It is interesting to see that Larry >>> does not know that mass does not vary with velocity. >> >> It depends on what mass calculation you use. >> >>> This misconception is one of the many >>> the public has been brainwashed to accept >>> because the Mass Media made Einstein their "Poster Boy" >>> to epitomize Jewish intelligence, >> >> hehehe.. 'Mass' media :):) >> >>> no doubt because the Jewish culture, >>> was vastly inferior to the cultures of >>> Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, India, >>> and later Europe. >>> >>> Some of the ways that time, money and minds have been wasted >>> because of the Mass media promotion of Einstein include >>> 1. The use of rubber rulers and clocks to map objects and events. >> >> Doesn't happen in SR. It does in LET >> >>> 2. The promotion of energy, rather than action, as quanta. >>> 3. The side tracking of the "Least action principle." >>> 4. The search for time travel, worm holes, gravitons, >> >> If things are predicted by non-refuted theories, then it is snesible to >> look for them in order to see if the theory can be refuted. That is how >> science works >> >>> and things beyond Man's capacity to ever experience >>> in time and space, >>> like the beginning and end of time, >> >> So trying to understand how our universe cam into existence or will go >> out >> of existence (of those events happened) is not worthwhile? >> >>> and the mind of God. >> >> What god? That is not a scientific endeavour. >> >>> 5. Morphing data from observations with many Newton and Maxwell Laws >>> in order top fit the data to General Relativity. >> >> No need to. >> >>> It is interesting to see that Einstein did not comprehend >>> that the so called aether was NOT a physical thing, >> >> He most likely comprehended thigns far better than you >> >>> but was simply the RIGID orthogonal axis >>> used to objects and events on. >> >> Then it doesn't physically exit and has no effect on reality. >> >>> A mind is a terrible thing to waste. >> >> What happened to yours? > > I agree with "Inertial" that Einstein's quest to > know the mind of God was > "not a scientific endeavour." > > http://www.gozillago.net/prose/Einstein.html > "Einstein is reported in a well-known story to have said of his physics > career, that everything he had done, > he had done in an effort to know the mind of God." Einsteins notion of 'god' was not of a supreme being separate from the universe, but more of pantheism. But yes .. knowing the 'mind of god' is not scientific. But when what he means by that is how the universe works, then it is. > I was surprised to see that "Inertial" > thinks there are is a mass that varies with velocity. We can measure it > When Maxwell developed Dimensional Analysis > he selected a few orthogonal physical properties > that could be quantized using stable unit sources > to serve as pointers to all of the other physical properties. > > He selected mass as stable hunk of matter could be > used as mass units, > > and he selected time as stable oscillators could be > used as time units, > > and he selected del factor, > a three dimensional space vector > as "rigid rods" could be used a space units. > > and he selected the permeability of space > to serve as the unit multiplier > to equate magnetic fields to the other properties, > > and he selected the permittivity of space > to serve as the unit multiplier > to equate electric fields to the other properties, > > and as it turns out, > he missed out on only two points, > > one, the time unit can also be uses > to quantize spaces, > > and two, the impedance of space can be > used as the unit for both electric and magnetic fields. > > It is interesting to see that Maxwell's Dimensional Analysis > is the STANDARD that ALL physics models > MUST conform to. > > If a model is not dimensionally correct, > it is numerology, NOT physics. All moderately interesting history .. but I'm not sure if you have sort of point there > It is sad that by making Einstein, > the Poster Boy to epitomize Jewish intelligence, It has nothing to do with poster boys or jewish intelligience. It is physics. > the Mass Media sent physics on a long detour It has nothing to do with mass media. It is physics > by trashing Maxwell's > minimum number of stable, orthogonal, fundamental, properties, It doesn't > and Plank's real quantum of change (Action). > > Energy is NOT quanta, You're going off on all sorts of weird crackpot tangents here > the number of units of mass does not change > when you run at mass, Why not .. because you say so. Strangely the momentum and energy increase more than what one would expect. That gives a mass value that is increasing. > nor does the number of length units in a rigid rod change > when you run at a rigid rod. Yes. its called length contraction. > What does change when you run at something > is the number of units space between you and the thing. You're naive --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: hanson on 11 Jun 2010 21:59 Addressing Tom Potter, "Rick" <rick0.merrill(a)gmail.com> wrote: Tom Potter, chew on this a while: http://symmecon.com/default.aspx [1] > hanson wrote: [1] is peddled by "Symmecon Marketing Corp. "...ahaha.. Ricky, listen: Tom Potter has been a big time marketer himself for 60 years, ... He needs no chewing... However why don't you post a condensed version, the new & novel stuff of what "Symmecon is Marketing". I'd be much interested and obliged... Till then, Ricky, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
From: Me, ...again! on 12 Jun 2010 06:55
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, paparios(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 7 jun, 19:38, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, papar...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> On 7 jun, 13:16, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >>>>> On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >> >>>> Sorry I deleted the following on my prior reply because it looked like you >>>> didn't comment. I'm saving the whole file, separately. I think your >>>> criticisms and responses need cross examination by the people you are >>>> criticising...or...I need to examine the whole picture myself. >> >>>> /////////////////////////////////////// >> >>> Well that would be a very difficult task, since many of the people >>> mentioned there are already dead!! >> >> Well, maybe one can see if there are any biographies. > > Are you serious? I have already mentioned to you the not so clean > biography of Van Flandern and the not so clean biography of Bethell. > Besides it is you who brought these guys as experts in relativity, > which they are not!! Pardon me. But I'll be the judge of what is clean. And, for a lot of people, if you write a book (good or bad), you become an expert just on that fact alone. I'll accept that one or two guys can be crackpots, but I began to find many more guys than I thought would be there who had their doubts. I even re-read a chapter on the wave-particle duality in a recent quantum mechanics book (the kind where equations are on every page, so it should make lots of you guys happy, and the author listed his affiliation with a university I've heard of, too) and he made a lot of qualified remarks, too. >> >>> Regarding the author...well, his description on Wikipedia sys: >>> "Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of >>> the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, which denies that HIV causes AIDS. >> >> Well, that's not good. >> >> His The >> >>> Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes skepticism of the >>> existence of man-made global warming, >> >> That is still controversial. And, while I think the human race will have >> to deal with global warming in the next few decades, it will also have to >> do something about the growing human contribution (particularly in asia). >> >> AIDS denialism, and skepticism >> >>> of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"), >> >> I like the evolution story much much better than Genesis, but there is >> also a movement out there to expand on fundamentalism and creationism and >> I do not see enough scientists coping with this. >> >> promoting >> >>> intelligent design instead." This is enough for me to run like hell >>> away from him. >> >> I think, on the contrary, you should be organizing, or helping to organize >> some kind of 'explanation of evolution' town meetings, or whatever. The >> creationists are fanatics and if they are not persuadable that their >> position is bad, then its going to be young guys like yourself that are >> going to wind up in a theocracy/dictatorship, not me. I'm retired and not >> going to be in this life for many more years. E/R is nowhere near the >> problems that the fanatics are pushing. E/R is academic. >> Hitler/Nazis/AlQueda/etc are/were out there killing and disrupting. >> >> > > Why in the world do you think I, or others here, would be interested > in doing what you suggest? Because if you don't, the "creationist movement" is going to overrun society. Theyve got the textbook publishers on the run, and working relentlessly on legislators, and lots of PR. At the very least it would a good thing to > do for yourself, if that subject is of interest for you. Me?.... not > thanks! Why? > If you want to learn what relativity says and how it is being tested > day after day, you can check the FAQ page or made a Google Scholar > search on the subject and you will see that none of these authors does > serious research on relativity subjects There isn't all that much that passes over NGs that I would consider as serious reserach. Even worse than that is that communication, period, is difficult. > Miguel Rios- > > |