Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him [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 23:47

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.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"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."

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 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).

'The Need to Understand Mass'
By Roger Cashmore
Department of Physics
University of Oxford, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

"There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this
problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that
the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to
the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel
through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what
appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces
felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the
interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear
to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg's
hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles."

The "action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any
thick liquid" is the particles interaction with the aether. The force
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.
The "thick liquid" is the aether behaving as a frictionless superfluid
'one something'.

"the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more
mass they appear to have." The faster the particle moves with respect
to the aether, the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced
aether towards the particle.

'Politics, Solid State and the Higgs'
By David Miller
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College, London, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs3.htm

"1. The Higgs Mechanism
In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is
the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background
field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle
moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around
the particle - generates the particle's mass. The idea comes directly
from the physics of solids. Instead of a field spread throughout all
space a solid contains a lattice of positively charged crystal atoms.
When an electron moves through the lattice the atoms are attracted to
it, causing the electron's effective mass to be as much as 40 times
bigger than the mass of a free electron."

The distortion of the background field is the displacement of the
aether by the moving particle. The 'clustering' of the field around
the particle is the 'displacing back'. The 'clustering' of the field
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.

"The idea comes directly from the physics of solids." The aether
behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'.

From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 23:47

From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 00:35

On Jun 2, 10:20 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> ___________________________
>
> The question was whether he received too much credit for those discoveries.
> Given that almost nobody outside the physics community knows about his huge
> contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and other parts of physics I
> think the answer is pretty obviously "no". Einstein clearly receives too
> little credit for the work he did outside of Relativity theory.
>
> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to
> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his
> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, after
> all.

I completely agree. And among PHYSICISTS, he does get credit where
credit is due. This is to be contrasted with the noise that is
generated about Einstein on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

There are lots and lots of books about Einstein and Feynman and
Darwin, because they were colorful characters as much as because of
their (selected) contributions to science. But that's to appeal to the
lay public, and toward the purpose of scientifically balanced
presentation.

From: J.H.Boersema on 3 Jun 2010 01:51

On 2010-06-02, Me, ...again! <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, J.H.Boersema wrote:
>> On 2010-06-02, Me, ...again! <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote:
[...]
>> - Distribution of the economic valuable soil, to each a part, you can
>> rent it out but never lose it.
>
> All nice, but I have to stop and devote some attention to other posts.
>
> Bye for now (I did read the rest of this)

Thanks. Please remember my site name, maybe you'd be more motivated
toward installing social justice once world war 3 comen knocking ...
or shout I say ... blast the door out with the wall. http://www.socialism.nl
I know it is hard to believe one site would have 'the answers,' but isn't it
even harder to believe not one even site would have 'the answers' ?

anyway, best regards & take care,
jos boersema, Holland

http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/disproof.html
(I'm usually posting in alt.politics.socialism by the way.
Because the economic problems are more pressing right now then
getting physics released from the relativity cult, I guess ...)
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.SOCIALISM.nl Free markets and democracy,
\ /v`vvv\ / but now: properly.
/_\_#_#_/_\
\ / Day 37 of the revolution.

From: Peter Webb on 3 Jun 2010 02:34

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aca42a36-39ff-40a6-a3df-b63c7172dc52(a)r5g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 10:20 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> ___________________________
>
> The question was whether he received too much credit for those
> discoveries.
> Given that almost nobody outside the physics community knows about his
> huge
> contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and other parts of physics I
> think the answer is pretty obviously "no". Einstein clearly receives too
> little credit for the work he did outside of Relativity theory.
>
> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to
> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his
> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, after
> all.

I completely agree. And among PHYSICISTS, he does get credit where
credit is due. This is to be contrasted with the noise that is
generated about Einstein on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

There are lots and lots of books about Einstein and Feynman and
Darwin, because they were colorful characters as much as because of
their (selected) contributions to science. But that's to appeal to the
lay public, and toward the purpose of scientifically balanced
presentation.

_______________________________

Don't know I completely agree. I don't think Darwin was a particularly
colorful character unless you include "grey" as a colour. Darwin is well
known largely because his theory of natural selection was so important
scientifically, so easily comprehended by non-scientists, and so
contentious.

Feynman, like Einstein, certainly was a colorful figure. While he was
unquestionably among the first rank of 20th century physics, I agree that
his public profile probably has as much to do with his activities outside of
research as his many contributions to physics.

What annoys me about this argument that Einstein was over-rated is it based
upon a complete misunderstanding as to Einstein's contributions. Yes, the
time had come for the Special Theory of Relativity, and if Einstein had not
articulated it so well in 1905 somebody else almost certainly would have.
OTOH, if Einstein's total contribution to physics was just SR, he would
probably be about as well known as Pauli, Heisenberg, Swarchschild, Bohr and
many other giants of 20th century physics. (ie pretty much completely
unknown outside of the scientific community). The fact is that it wasn't
just SR. His GR theory came almost from nowhere, and he made many other
contributions that individually would have put him in the first rank.

Nobody since Newton has made so many profound contributions to so many
different parts of physics. Like Newton, he deserves his fame not because of
a single important theory, but a whole collection of theories and ideas. He
deserves his fame.