A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 6th 07, 10:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER

Einstein money-spinner is dead, says the Royal Society:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...ecfgravb28.xml
"Last week, an American probe began an 18-month mission to put
Einstein's prediction to the test, 90 years after he unveiled his
ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was blasted into space from the
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and
will orbit the Earth for more than a year. The $700 million joint
mission between Nasa and Stanford University, conceived in 1958, uses
four of the most perfect spheres ever created inside the world's
largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions in the fabric of
the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said: "The
project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the persistence and
lobbying power of Stanford University. But its gestation has been
grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have been equally gross.
I recall hearing a talk about the project from Francis Everitt
(principal investigator) when I was still a student - and it was
already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for Einstein's
theory was meagre - just two tests, with 10 per cent precision. But
relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with precision of one
part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to have new and
different tests. But the level of confidence in Einstein's theory is
now so high that an announcement of the expected result will 'fork no
lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected result, I suspect
most people will suspect an error in this very challenging experiment
rather than immediately abandon Einstein: There's now so much evidence
corroborating Einstein, that a high burden of proof is required before
he'll be usurped by any rival theory. "So the most exciting - if un-
alluring - outcome of Gravity Probe B would be a request by Stanford
University for another huge sum of money to repeat it."

Beyond Einstein money-spinner is not dead, says NASA. The Royal
Society agrees for the moment:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-jde090507.php

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp...aspx?key=48716

http://beyondeinstein.nasa.gov/
"But now we need to build on Einstein's work to take the next step -
to study the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of
his theories. We must also test them at their extreme limits to see if
there are any circumstances where his theories break down. In other
words, we need to go beyond Einstein."

But Beyond Einstein money-spinner will also die some say, and then
will there be a Beyond Beyond Einstein money-spinner? No. There WILL
be a Beyond Beyond Einstein, but no money will come from it. A French
Einsteinian explains what Beyond Beyond Einstein means:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old September 6th 07, 11:06 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
meda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER

"Pentcho Valev" wrote

A French Einsteinian explains what Beyond Beyond Einstein means:
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."


I agree. That's the only correct way to go.
Relativity Theory is wrong.
Even NASA does NOT use any of Relativity Theory,
they use good old Newton.

  #3  
Old September 6th 07, 04:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER

On 6 Sept, 18:01, Sam Wormley wrote:
meda wrote:

Relativity Theory is wrong.


How so?


http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Banesh Hoffmann is one of Divine Albert's apostles. Bellicose zombies
and even hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult should take his words
very seriously.

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old September 6th 07, 05:30 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
meda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER

"Pentcho Valev" wrote
On 6 Sept, 18:01, Sam Wormley wrote:
meda wrote:

Relativity Theory is wrong.


How so?


http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Banesh Hoffmann is one of Divine Albert's apostles. Bellicose zombies
and even hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult should take his words
very seriously.


Otherwise they will be discriminated, banned, badmouthed,
censored, terrorized, and "quartered"; ie. "Jimmy Carterized" :-)
Right? :-)

  #5  
Old September 19th 07, 05:59 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default BEYOND EINSTEIN MONEY-SPINNER

On Sep 6, 12:41 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinmoney-spinner is dead, says the Royal Society:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...ecfgravb28.xml
"Last week, an American probe began an 18-month mission to put Einstein'sprediction to the test, 90 years after he unveiled his
ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was blasted into space from the
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and
will orbit the Earth for more than a year. The $700 million joint
mission between Nasa and Stanford University, conceived in 1958, uses
four of the most perfect spheres ever created inside the world's
largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions in the fabric of
the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said: "The
project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the persistence and
lobbying power of Stanford University. But its gestation has been
grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have been equally gross.
I recall hearing a talk about the project from Francis Everitt
(principal investigator) when I was still a student - and it was
already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence forEinstein's
theory was meagre - just two tests, with 10 per cent precision. But
relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with precision of one
part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to have new and
different tests. But the level of confidence inEinstein'stheory is
now so high that an announcement of the expected result will 'fork no
lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected result, I suspect
most people will suspect an error in this very challenging experiment
rather than immediately abandonEinstein: There's now so much evidence
corroboratingEinstein, that a high burden of proof is required before
he'll be usurped by any rival theory. "So the most exciting - if un-
alluring - outcome of Gravity Probe B would be a request by Stanford
University for another huge sum of money to repeat it."

Beyond Einstein money-spinner is not dead, says NASA. The Royal
Society agrees for the moment:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-jde090507.php

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp...aspx?key=48716

http://beyondeinstein.nasa.gov/
"But now we need to build onEinstein'swork to take the next step -
to study the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of
his theories. We must also test them at their extreme limits to see if
there are any circumstances where his theories break down. In other
words, we need to go beyond Einstein."

But Beyond Einstein money-spinner will also die some say, and then
will there be a Beyond Beyond Einstein money-spinner? No. There WILL
be a Beyond Beyond Einstein, but no money will come from it. A French
Einsteinian explains what Beyond Beyond Einstein means:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."


Eisenstaedt is right. There is nothing but Newton beyond Einstein:

http://www.space.com/news/070918_weinberg_critique.html
"Weinberg pointed to NASA's treatment of its Beyond Einstein program
as an example of the agency's misplaced priorities. Beyond Einstein
consists of five proposed space missions designed to build upon and
expand Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. "Only one of
them is slated to go ahead, and given NASA's record, if we suddenly
run into extra expenses in the manned spaceflight program, that will
be put on the back burner, just as has been done time and time again
by NASA," Weinberg said. A recent report by the National Research
Council concluded that the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)-designed
to investigate a mysterious force that scientists think is
accelerating the expansion of the universe-is the only Beyond Einstein
mission ready to begin construction. "All the others have been put on
the back burner," Weinberg said. "This is at the same time that NASA's
budget is increasing...."

Pentcho Valev

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT 46erjoe Misc 964 March 10th 07 07:10 AM
Money - Money - Fast - Legal - Easy - Be Honest - Play Fair & Enjoy!.txt Misc 0 January 17th 06 04:10 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:48 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.