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 2 Jun 2010 15:25 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, train wrote: > On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net... >> >> >> >>> I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that. >> >>> It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and read/learned from >>> classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with >>> authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics. >> >>> I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a lot of >>> very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject are >>> trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention than he >>> deserves. >> >> Who? >> >> Some other nutter? >> >> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that Einstein >> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to physics? >> >> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation of >> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would know that >> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics. >> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in a >> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion created the >> field of statistical mechanics. >> >> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he deserves, >> wouldn't you agree? > > AE won the Nobel Prize for > > He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to > Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of > the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia Did you also know that some of the Nobel prize winners got the prize for the wrong answer? > Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong > or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the > fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a > change to which will require millions of years of scientific > evolution. It would be historically of value to appreciate that a dissenting opinion really does exist. Just as there is a mainstream understanding that the Nazis really did carry out the Holocaust, there is a minority opinion that the Nazis really never sent anyone into the gas chambers. Personally, I favor the majority opinion (the mainstream understanding).
From: blackhead on 2 Jun 2010 16:07 On 2 June, 06:05, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > > > I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > > > General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > > > What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > > > (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > > > he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > > > virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > > > Was he wrong about them as well? > > > Was Einstein right or wrong? > > > What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. > > ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, > > more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > > I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > credibility. > > I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > Einstein school of thought feel that way. > Some candidate ideas: > - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > cannot possibly be considered right. > - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > symptom of that problem. > - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. > - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > > Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I still have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by its power. Larry
From: Androcles on 2 Jun 2010 15:55 "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:jlyNn.32795$h57.3748(a)newsfe22.iad... | On 02/06/2010 20:03, Me, ...again! wrote: | > | > | > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Androcles wrote: | > | >> | >> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message | >> news:XKrNn.80185$rE4.67200(a)newsfe15.iad... | >> | >> | If you can demonstrate an experiment where SR or GR makes an incorrect | >> | prediction then do so and quit whining. | >> | | >> | Regards, | >> | Martin Brown | >> | >> If you can demonstrate an experiment where SR or GR makes an correct | >> prediction different from Newtonian Mechanics then do so and quit your | >> ignorant fuckin' bigotry and whining. | >> Disregards, | >> Androcles. | > | > My understanding is that NM and SR/GR depend on the scale of the | > experimental situation. | | You should be aware that Androcles is a third rate netkook with | delusions of adequacy. | | And he should hand in his GPS and Satnav - kooks do not deserve to | benefit from technologies that rely upon relativity. | | SR becomes significant at speeds above c/10 and these are routinely | obtained in cyclotrons, synchrotrons and other particle accelerators. | Relativistic beaming is observed and hard UV light output is used now | for some semiconductor resist printing as well as research. | | The fact that at 3x10^8 m/s you will be long way from your starting | point after a second affects the experimental scale, unless as with | charged particles in a magnetic field you can make them go around a | closed circuit like a merry-go-round. | | GR is only very important on an astronomical scale with compact massive | objects although one sensitive test of GR using Mossbauer spectroscopy - | the Pound-Rebka experiment is doable in a lab. | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment | | > But, I'm not an expert. | | Neither is Androcles. | | Regards, | Martin Brown | You should be aware that Brown is a 23rd rate general kook with delusions of grandeur. He is the prick that asked Fairbrother about Cr when Fairbrother said HSS, he doesn't even know the difference between chromium and W = tungsten. Afraid to go one-on-one in case I swear at you, shitheaded bigot Brown? If you can demonstrate an experiment where SR or GR makes a correct prediction different from Newtonian Mechanics then do so and quit your ignorant fuckin' bigotry and cowardly whining, you worthless fuckin' tord. Disregards, Androcles.
From: Androcles on 2 Jun 2010 17:36 "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:ad86be73-79c0-464d-9b97-3272e46a946c(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... On 2 June, 06:05, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > > > I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > > > General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > > > What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric > > > effect > > > (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and > > > for which > > > he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion > > > (which > > > virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > > > Was he wrong about them as well? > > > Was Einstein right or wrong? > > > What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. > > ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, > > more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > > I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > credibility. > > I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > Einstein school of thought feel that way. > Some candidate ideas: > - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > cannot possibly be considered right. > - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > symptom of that problem. > - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. > - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > > Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: 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. It's similar to trying to study calculus by looking at the original papers of Lebniz or Newton; or Lagrangian mechanics by studying his M�canique analytique. 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. 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. 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. 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. I still have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by its power. Larry =============================================== "You remind me of the man." "What man?" "The man with the power." "What power?" "The power of hoodoo." "Who do?" "You do." "I do? I do what?" "You remind me of the man." "What man?" "The man with the power." "What fuckin' power?" "The power of fuckin' bullshit!"
From: blackhead on 2 Jun 2010 17:39
On 2 June, 21:10, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/06/2010 21:07, blackhead wrote: > > > > > > > On 2 June, 06:05, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!"<arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > >>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > >>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > >>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > >>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > >>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > >>>> Was he wrong about them as well? > > >>> Was Einstein right or wrong? > > >>> What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. > >>> ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, > >>> more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. > > >> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > >> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > >> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > >> credibility. > > >> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > >> Einstein school of thought feel that way. > >> Some candidate ideas: > >> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > >> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > >> cannot possibly be considered right. > >> - The theory is wrong, though it is right by the metrics by which > >> science judges theories. But this points to the fundamental problem > >> with how science is done, and this theory being wrong is just a > >> symptom of that problem. > >> - The theory is probably right, but the credit is wrongly given to > >> Einstein, as it properly belongs to other people. > >> - The theory's correctness is completely uncertain at this point, and > >> the issue is that scientists insist that it must be accepted as right. > >> - Even if the theory is right, voice needs to be given to the contrary > >> proposal with equal weight, for the sake of maintaining debate. > > >> Which of these represents your position?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Special Relativity was controversial when it first came out, although > > it was accepted by *leading* physicists such a Plank according to: > > > 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. 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. 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. 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. > > > 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. > > 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. I still > > have a long way to go, but the more I study it, the more I'm amazed by > > its power. > > > Larry > > c = const is all that is needed. > The maths follows. You have to add that c = const for all frames, don't you? There is a maximum velocity a particle can move with in any frame is equivalent, I think. > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio..com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |