|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |