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

What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 11, 05:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.

[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]

It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.


Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.

1. Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
  #2  
Old September 3rd 11, 08:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

The situation is schizophrenic. The "Mainstream Scientific
Establishment" easily criticizes the consequences of the theory - e.g.
the block universe is almost universally rejected. At the same time
the trivial deductive rule:

"unacceptable consequences, therefore false axioms"

is, to use Orwell's terminology, an "unrule" - it does not exist, it
has never existed. There will be a conference in a few months and the
announcement sounds quite heretical:

http://wwww.uaeu.ac.ae/conferences/t...objectives.asp
"Time is a fundamental concept that eludes rigorous definition and
description and proves elusive when studied by scientists. The more we
understand the realities of time, the more it becomes obscure and
unrealizable. Modern theories in physics and cosmology dramatically
alter our views of time, but instead of clarifying the classical views
of time, modern theories add complexity to the notion of time through
the questions and paradoxes arising from the introduction of concepts
such as time travel, negative time and curved time."

Do you think the possible falsehood of the postulates of "modern
theories in physics" will be discusssed at this conference? It will
not even be hinted at.

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old September 3rd 11, 08:30 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_64_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


"GSS" wrote in message
...
| Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
| developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
| an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
| of years even in the modern age of instant communications?

Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.


Why the
| collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
| Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
| of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
| Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
| resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
| 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
| fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
|
That's what I mean. In your ignorance you are sustaining the mistaken
belief that Einstein is responsible for length contraction whereas his
equations indicate length EXPANSION. And there is nothing wrong
with a moving frame of reference, any fool riding in a car is at rest
relative to the windscreen and moving relative to the road, it isn't
magic. If it is fictitious then every length, symbol or TV image is
fictitious, from this text which has no ink on your screen to money
which only has value for trade. Discs of metal, gold bars and
diamonds have no survival value, they cannot be eaten. And all
diamonds do is refract light, making pretty colours, otherwise they
are just another rock folly.

| Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
| "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
| Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
|
As I said, cash incentives. New Scientist is profitable magazine.

| [Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
| more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
| included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
| Einstein's opponents?

ME!


(...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
| the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
| of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
| demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
| time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
| threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
| phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
| opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
| did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
| opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
| played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
| reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
| science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
| Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
| further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
| metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
| overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
| stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
| and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
| campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
| 1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
| Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
| "The day will come where everything about this theory will be
| abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
| debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
| Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
| share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]
|
| It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
| hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
| intellectuals.

Why not? Ptolemy's epicycles lasted 1400 years. The Neolithic Egyptian
pyramid follies are much older.


| It points to a serious malady in the body of
| 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
| factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
|
| (a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
| physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
| that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
|
| (b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
| invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
| founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
| depth.
|
| (c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
| practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.
|
| (d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
| expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
| such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
| any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.
|
| (e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
| contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
| maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
| established beliefs and dogmas.
|
| However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
| erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
| uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
| of many intellectuals?
|
| Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
|

It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.


| Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
| mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
| that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
| sustained by mistaken beliefs.
|
| 1. Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
| Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
| relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
| reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
| inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
| universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
| the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
| propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
| frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
| called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
| feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
| up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
| points on the surface of earth. With current technological
| advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
| computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
| Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
| shift in fundamental physics.
|
| This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
| that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
| describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.
|
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1
|
| 2. Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
| Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
| theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
| spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
| spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
| spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
| continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
| a physical entity.
|
| This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
| belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
| "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
| physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
| to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
| The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
| 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
| tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
| 'graphical' template.
|
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1
|
| GSS
| http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

You've added nothing useful, made no new discovery.
You have some utterly religious bull**** about the "permittivity
of free space" based on your own faith. YOU are adding to the
mystique.
Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bull****, thick
and rich.
--Androcles




  #4  
Old September 3rd 11, 08:52 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

"GSS" wrote:


"Androcles" wrote:
It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.

Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bull****, thick
and rich.
--Androcles


Amen!



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
  #5  
Old September 3rd 11, 09:10 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.

Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.

Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

What do you have to say to that mister?


  #6  
Old September 3rd 11, 09:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_64_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
| Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.
|
| Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.
|
Problem is, you are an ignorant lying bigot and a dumb****.



  #7  
Old September 3rd 11, 09:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 3, 10:10*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.

Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.

Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

What do you have to say to that mister?


That nowadays the experimental confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory are glorious and absolutely honest. Initially they were only
glorious:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN
KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS'
MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY
A FACTOR OF FOUR."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old September 3rd 11, 10:02 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 3, 4:10*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.

Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.

Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

What do you have to say to that mister?


Well, it just merely proves once again that the only thing
Theoretical Physicists
know about space, time, computers, evolution, rockets, lasers.
plutonium, or robots
is Gauss.


  #9  
Old September 3rd 11, 11:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
mpc755
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 818
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

The main issue with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' is not
understanding aether has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether physically occupies three
dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

Understanding aether has mass unifies GR and QM.

Aether displacement is the theory of everything.
  #10  
Old September 4th 11, 02:09 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Thomas Heger[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:
Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.


I personally believe, that theoretical physics as we know it is
intentionally wrong. Better models are known, but not for the common
mortals. To train the students total nonsense was developed, that is
inconceivable complicated, but has no value whatsoever.

These 'theories' also disrupt occasional dissident movements and deviate
them into wrong tracks.

How to overcome this???? Well first trying to see, that this is
intentional. Nature cannot function like some of our most prominent
models suggest. And it is absolutely unwanted by the 'high-priests',
that laymen develop a valid description. This would make them
immediately unnecessary and people would start to ask, how these
billions were actually spent and what all these 'scientists' actually do.

On Arxiv.org there are half a million papers. This is an unbelievable
large number and nobody can ever read them. So it is completely useless
to have such a system, but it does exist. But why?? I assume: to create
a flood of nonsense.

It has to be this way, because nature should behave somehow with simple
mechanisms, hence we would need only a few papers with valid
descriptions - and the rest is wrong (nonsense). So 99,9% is wrong and
everybody knows this, except the common mortals.

Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
(smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
reject every dissident word.

TH
 




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
What the Scientific Establishment DOESN'T want you to knowof theSCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 September 2nd 08 01:54 PM
Vested-Interest Secrets of the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT (The Truth ItDoesn't Want You to Know) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 September 2nd 08 01:47 PM
Corrupt Scientific Establishment Still Blackballing Ed Conrad's Incredible Discoveries -- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 July 21st 06 11:42 AM
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment - John Zinni Amateur Astronomy 0 April 27th 06 08:41 PM
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment.. Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 1 March 30th 06 06:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


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.