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: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 17:45 On Jun 2, 3:16 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > > On Jun 1, 6:59 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 01/06/2010 09:30, hanson wrote: > > >>> "Einstein was right?" yields 148,000 Google hits, posted by > > >> Aether = quantum vacuum. > >> Plus, if the equations governing the aether are the same as STR and GTR, > >> what's the point? Do any aether theories predict neutron star slow-down > >> and time dilation in a gravitational field to the same accuracy? > > >> -- > >> Dirk > > >>http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UK > >>http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show > > > With aether, the physics of nature are easily understood. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > The material is mæther. > > Mæther has mass. > > Aether and matter have mass. > > Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert > > Einstein > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > aether's state of displacement. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters > > and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon > > exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule > > travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether > > wave and there is not interference. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN' > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. > > > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the > > mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The > > physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter > > and aether is energy. > > > The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. > > > Mass is conserved. > > > The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether > > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS > > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether > > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS > > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest > > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to > > "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated > > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS > > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS > > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure > > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with > > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the > > aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites > > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). > > Thanks for bringing this to the NGs. No prob. You heard it here first.
From: Androcles on 2 Jun 2010 17:49 "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:ec79b298-3818-426e-a23b-45920115b3d7(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... 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 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 > > 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. ================================================== Awesomely ridiculous. Let us in ``stationary'' space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike. Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks." -- Albert Amazingly Powerful Einstein. As long as amazingly powerful v doesn't exceed amazingly powerful c?
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 18:17 On Jun 2, 6:05 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/06/2010 22:38, Androcles wrote: > > > > > > > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:86ns65Fje9U5(a)mid.individual.net... > > | 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. > > > Assertion carries no weight. > > c' = c+v > > Not if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames > > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio..com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show The speed of light is measured to be 'c' in all inertial frames. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, .... disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is the train. The Observers on the train synchronize three clocks at M'. One Observer walks a clock to A' and the other walks a clock to B'. When the Observer walks the clock to A' the clock is being walked with the 'flow' of aether and ticks faster. The clock walked to B' is being walked against the 'flow' of aether and ticks slower. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at the Observer at M on the embankment simultaneously. When the lightning strikes occur on the train the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:03, 12:00:02, and 12:00:01, respectively. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M' prior to the light from A'. When the Observers on the train get back together they conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' and the light traveled at 'c'.
From: Me, ...again! on 2 Jun 2010 21:22 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, blackhead wrote: > 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. Cherenkov radiation--IIRC--is what you get when a particle travels in a medium faster than light travels in that medium. Tell me if I'm wrong. >> -- >> Dirk >> >> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >
From: Me, ...again! on 2 Jun 2010 21:24
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > On Jun 2, 3:16 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: >>> On Jun 1, 6:59 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2010 09:30, hanson wrote: >> >>>>> "Einstein was right?" yields 148,000 Google hits, posted by >> >>>> Aether = quantum vacuum. >>>> Plus, if the equations governing the aether are the same as STR and GTR, >>>> what's the point? Do any aether theories predict neutron star slow-down >>>> and time dilation in a gravitational field to the same accuracy? >> >>>> -- >>>> Dirk >> >>>> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UK >>>> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show >> >>> With aether, the physics of nature are easily understood. >> >>> Aether and matter are different states of the same material. >>> The material is mæther. >>> Mæther has mass. >>> Aether and matter have mass. >>> Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. >>> Aether is displaced by matter. >>> The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. >>> The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. >>> Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. >> >>> "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >>> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring >>> places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert >>> Einstein >> >>> The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >>> matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >>> aether's state of displacement. >> >>> A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The >>> C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters >>> and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon >>> exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule >>> travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether >>> wave and there is not interference. >> >>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. >>> EINSTEIN' >>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf >> >>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass >>> diminishes by L/c2." >> >>> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer >>> exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as >>> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three >>> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether >>> and matter is energy. >> >>> Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the >>> mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The >>> physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter >>> and aether is energy. >> >>> The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. >> >>> Mass is conserved. >> >>> The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether >>> pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS >>> satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether >>> and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS >>> satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest >>> with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to >>> "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated >>> with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS >>> satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS >>> clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure >>> associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with >>> respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the >>> aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites >>> [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." >>> (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the NGs. > > No prob. You heard it here first. You're right, but none of it is my specialization. Got my PhD in biology. Got my grants in biomedical research. Now, retired. Reading a lot of history for fun. |