Prev: How much faster than light are we capable of measuring?
Next: About centre of mass inertial reference frames
From: Y.Porat on 25 May 2010 10:48
On May 25, 3:47 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:48 pm, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > snip
> > >> Uncle Ben makes a good point when he suggests that Einstein,
> > >> like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh
> > >> was right on some points,
>
> > >> but this does not negate that fact that General Relativity
> > >> was an effort by Einstein to apply the model ( Stresses and strains)
> > >> and the tools ( Tensors ) of the stress analysis gurus of the 1800's
> > >> to the universe, and although stress analysis works very well
> > >> on inanimate objects, it is not useful for modeling volumes
> > >> inhabited by sentient beings.
>
> > >> Furthermore, Einstein Cultists do not like to acknowledge the fact
> > >> that Galileo discovered centuries ago that the period of oscillators
> > >> was affected by acceleration, and England sent ships all over the
> > >> world with standard pendulums, and Newton used the data collected
> > >> to compute the shape of the Earth and the tides in many places.
>
> > >> Considering that Newton did this using his model and hand calculation
> > >> perhaps Uncle Ben or some Einstein Cultists will compute the tide in one
> > >> place
> > >> using General Relativity to demonstrate its' superiority,
>
> > >> and I trust that they will demonstrate that the acceleration effect
> > >> on oscillators discovered by Galileo does not apply
> > >> to the frequency of atomic oscillators in the GPS System.
>
> > >> What model can be best used by sentient beings
> > >> to understand, control, and maintain their environment,
> > >> in such a way as to optimize their time, resources and well being?
>
> > >> 1. A model that adopts ONE standard unit,
> > >> and uses that unit to map things and events
> > >> onto the minimum number of rigid orthogonals,
>
> > >> 2. or a model that fixes things and events at constant points,
> > >> on the required number of orthogonals,
> > >> and allows the orthogonals to bend,
>
> > >> 3. or a model that fixes things and events at constant points,
> > >> on the required number of orthogonals,
> > >> and allows the units to vary?
>
> > >> Considering that model #1 uses a standard time unit
> > >> derived from sets of stable oscillating systems,
> > >> and orders things and events on rigid orthogonals,
>
> > >> and is used every day
> > >> by mechanics, technicians, engineers, scientists,
> > >> and managers to explain, design, and maintain
> > >> bridges, buildings, machines, spring-mass systems,
> > >> electronics and the GPS System,
>
> > >> and models #2 and #3 use rubber clocks and rulers,
> > >> or non-orthogonal frames
> > >> to model time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
> > >> the beginning and end of the universe,
> > >> and the mind of God.
>
> > >> Einstein created a Tower of Babel
> > >> when he allowed objects to distort Cartesian Coordinates
> > >> in General Relativity.
>
> > >> "Resources are terrible things to waste."
>
> > >> --
> > >> Tom Potter
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >Amazing, isn't it, that in spite of so many apparent faults, GR works
> > >better than any competing theory in predicting observable phenomena.
>
> > >Uncle Ben
>
> > Considering that my pal Uncle Ben asserts
> > "GR works better than any competing theory in predicting observable
> > phenomena."
>
> > I trust that he will use his  powerful, esoteric knowledge of GR
> > to "predict" the following,
> > so that folks can see how much "better" GR is than
> > Newton's and Maxwell's models.
>
> > 1. Connect a 10 volt battery across a 5 ohm resistor.
> > Predict how much current flows.
>
> > 2. The Earth revolves about the Sun
> > in 365.25 days,
> > and is at a distance of 93,000,000 miles.
>
> > What is the mass of the Sun?
>
> > Of course, it's a little more complex,
> > but as GR is "better" than Newton's ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I had a graduatge student once who wanted to use my entire supply of
> chromic acid cleaning solution to clean a filthy piece of copper.  Now
> chromic acid cleans very, very well the last bit of organic
> contamnation from experimetal equipment,  I told the student to first,
> wipe the part with a paper towel, second, wash it with soap and water,
> third rinse it with acetone, and then come back for a small bit of
> chromic acid.
>
> The point is, you don't use fine sandpaper on a fresh-cut log.
>
> Newtonian gravity theory is simple and easy to use. In this sense, Tom
> Potter is correct: Newtonian theory is "better" when your precision
> needs are within its reach.  GR gives the same answers as Newton until
> you need very high precision.
>
> Where you do need GR is when its results differ from Newton's and you
> want to choose between the theories.  Particularly in the precession
> of non-circular orbits does GR excel over Newton's theory.
>
> If your criterion is accuracy to the limit of observation, GR is
> better.  In no case is its accuracy worse.
>
> But if you want to eat a coconut, a hammer is "better" than a pile
> driver. That much, I concede to Tom.
>
> Uncle Ben

------------------------

oneof the great lies of GR worshoers is that it is because of
curved space

it has nothing to do with curved space
curved motion is one of the properties
of mass !!!
and its sun constituents !!
**the precision is not by the THEORY
IT IS MORE PRECISE BECAUSE
MUCH MORE WAS INVESTED IN IT
TO ADD CORRECTION FACTORS
BY A LONG PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR!!

AGAIN:
A LONG PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR
TOF IT IS TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA
IOW
if** another theory**!! would spend so much in the above process
of
'fiddling in ' experimental corrections to it-----
it could do not less succesfuly

(may be even better including
places that GR cannot as for now
do it for instance
in strong forces

GR failed to **combine all forces**
and it is not accidental that it failed !!!
i
space has no properties beside
hosting mass

NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE) --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!

(said old 'Catto' )

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

From: NoEinstein on 25 May 2010 14:11
On May 24, 4:18 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
Dear Uncle Ben: Thinking about science issues, objectively, over a
lifetime, greatly helps in figuring out the particulars. The 'dream
time' of analytical and creative people shouldn't be mocked, over the
effect such has on finding solutions. The mind is like a loyal
worker: Give them an assignment, and they won't rest until the
assignment has been well done.

Too many people—in seeking... "solutions"—go running to books to get
the answers of others. I knew, even in grade school, that I was as
smart, or smarter, than any teacher; and likely so for the writers of
the texts. Instead of letting others tell me what's what, I decided I
would figure things out for myself, with as little outside
interference as possible. I got to see Einstein on a live TV show a
few years before his death. He spoke at about 1/2 the normal speed,
and took at least ten seconds to think what he would say when asked
questions that he must have answered many times before. I, as that
innocent kid, concluded that Einstein was retarded, not brilliant.
Nothing that has happened since has caused me to change that opinion.
— NoEinstein —
>
> On May 24, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 4:34 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear U. Ben:  Great question!  Charged particles, like electrons and
> > protons, have a mass.  Collectively, they are capable of illuminating
> > by their 'at least one' photon.  But once they become deficient in the
> > ether which forms the photons, they can absorb the needed
> > replenishment ether and continue to emit photons.  However, unlike in
> > larger mass concentrations, the photons are widely spaced and have no
> > specific frequency.  If, say, gamma ray streams are emitting photons,
> > such can carry away some of the ether near the beam, and result in
> > gravity being able to bend the beam.  No mass can be a mass unless
> > ether flow can impart a force to it!  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > On May 21, 11:48 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Burt:  The definition of mass: "Any concentration of energy which
> > > > can slow the passage of ether through such, and, while so doing,
> > > > experience a force in the same direction as the flowing ether, and in
> > > > proportion to the concentration of energy-mass.  Additionally, a mass
> > > > must be capable of giving off at least one photon."  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > On May 20, 5:58 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 18, 9:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 5/18/10 7:26 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >PD(AKA Paul Draper) used to teach science, or physics, insome
> > > > > > > > > > capacity.  He considers the status quo to be his Bible of what’s
> > > > > > > > > > what.  In particular, he accepts—without question—the equations and
> > > > > > > > > > definitions in his high school science books, and he expects all
> > > > > > > > > > others to do the same.
>
> > > > > > > > >    Perhaps you have forgotten that the ideal world pretty much behaves
> > > > > > > > >    as the physics textbooks describe. Newtonian mechanics is adequate
> > > > > > > > >    for describing the behavior of the world that most experience.
>
> > > > > > > > >    Furthermore, advance texts teaching relativity and the quantum
> > > > > > > > >    mechanics are right on also.
>
> > > > > > > > >    Does NoEinstein for get that science laws and theories are testable
> > > > > > > > >    and that thehasnever been an observation thathascontradicted
> > > > > > > > >    a prediction of the QED or relativity. All are very fruitful theories
> > > > > > > > >    and help us to understand nature.
>
> > > > > > > > >    Dosomeself-education NoEinstein, instead of wasting your time
> > > > > > > > >    trying to disparage what you don't understand.
>
> > > > > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > > > > one of the disasters that happened to modern science
> > > > > > > > is that
> > > > > > > > untalented   people like Sam Wormley
> > > > > > > > are 'teaching' others physics!!
> > > > > > > > byjust quoting others....from existing text books!
>
> > > > > > > > just a few hundreds of years a go
> > > > > > > > people were teaching others from text books
> > > > > > > > that determined that the sun is orbiting earth
> > > > > > > > and exactly the same
> > > > > > > > the    parrots of today teach every body that
>
> > > > > > > > "NO MASS CAN REACH    c !!!!--
>
> > > > > > > > AND THEREFORE THERE ARE MASS LESS
> > > > > > > > PARTICLES !!!
> > > > > > > > keep well
> > > > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Massless energy is not infinitely dense.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Burt, That's brilliant!  — NE —- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Mass is the state of energy whereby it is infinitely dense. Mass is
> > > > > always an infinitely dense infinitely small point of energy. Point
> > > > > particles are mass.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > After the mass gives off its one photon, is it then not a mass?
>
> > > (Continue the insanity!)
>
> > > UB
>
> Do these bits of knowledge come to you in a dream, or what?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: How much faster than light are we capable of measuring?
Next: About centre of mass inertial reference frames