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 3 Jun 2010 09:38 "Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006030737480.84303(a)osmium.mv.net... > > Someone left out the "attributions" so I don't know who is asking whom, > what. This thread started over relativity and someone saying that > "Einstein was right [about relativity]" and all I was focused on was > relativity. His contributions to photoelectric effect and brownian motion > are well recognized and I think credit is due. Credit is due for > relativity, but the crux of my commentary is that Einsteins SR/GR has its > serious critics and their criticisms are not trivial and that has to be > recognized instead of the hand-waving, beating the drums, and > self-congratulation the PR press releases make noise about. > All physical theories are subject to criticism. So what?
From: blackhead on 3 Jun 2010 10:19 On 3 June, 14:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > | > | [snipped] > | > | Well, as somebody else pointed out, what Einstein wrote 100 years ago > | > | has as much bearing on modern physics as what Newton wrote 300 years > | > | ago. Only nuts and historians go to source for their critique. > | > > | > Obviously the somebody who pointed it out is far cleverer than Einstein. > | > What was this brilliant fuckin' genius's name that wrote 'modern' > physics > | > all > | > by himself? Dork Brouhaha at NewPox, by any chance? > | > |http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ > | > Ah, that explains it. A bozo from just outside Tinseltown that > never quite made it into movie fantasies so he wrote his own. > Your hero, is he? Look at section 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources. Not one experiment there confirms your belief that c isn't a constant for moving sources. Just one experiment showing that c isn't a constant in a vacuum would mean fame its discoverer. Come, join us in 2010, there's no need to stand there, wet and shivering in the cold of 1905 ;) Larry.
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 10:40 On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an > brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle > tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as > the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the > Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the > Earth? > > Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother > being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the > brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? > > Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the > whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic > clocks tick at the same rate. > Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in lunacy land. > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > times an atomic clock ticks. Search for posts
From: Androcles on 3 Jun 2010 10:47 "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:86pphuFvn7U1(a)mid.individual.net... | On 03/06/2010 14:07, Androcles wrote: | > | | > | | > | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ | > | | > Ah, that explains it. A bozo from just outside Tinseltown that | > never quite made it into movie fantasies so he wrote his own. | > Your hero, is he? | | Specifically: | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html | | Get stuck in with your refutations. I asked you who wrote modern physics, you replied baez, and I asked you if he was your fuckin' hero, you fuckin' occulted cretin. Too stupid to understand a simple question, are you?
From: mpc755 on 3 Jun 2010 10:52
On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an > > brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle > > tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as > > the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the > > Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the > > Earth? > > > Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother > > being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the > > brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? > > > Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the > > whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic > > clocks tick at the same rate. > > Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and > things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and > chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, > then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is > correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G > environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on > lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in > lunacy land. > The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the Earth. You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not think. > > > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > > times an atomic clock ticks. > > Search for posts |