What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:16:47 -0700, mpc755 wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:10Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:03:43 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:50Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:27Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/show/
field_guide_to_critical_thinking/
Â* Â*http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason,
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*and Anthropology: The Principles of Rational
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Inquiry (1997, Rowman and Littlefield
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Publishers). He can be reached by e-mail at
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*the following address:

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
Â* Â*http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental
to a generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity
states, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that
anyone who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank
file, and treat it with the respect it is due.

It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

Newsflash: Einstein didn't understand GR very well. Hilbert told him
how to solve the equations.

But I tend to not like people who intentionally take quotes out of
context.

"Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked
through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Which kinda put the lie to your idiot posting, huh?

Now, go troll somewhere else. Why not share your genius with
sci.chemistry. Why do all the asswipes have to come to sci.physics?

snip intentional lies

Which is exactly what I am saying. Einstein said, "According to the
general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."

Asshole. I point out you took it out of context, and then you quote it
out of context AGAIN.

This is why I killfile clowns like you.

Mind you, I'm more than open minded towards Modified theories of gravity,
but idiots like you can't even state what's wrong, mathematically, with
GR.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| Science requires an objective and utterly honest person.
|

That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
a spade a spade and a ****wit a ****wit, which upset the ****wits.



| Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide the
| money are ignorant of science.

No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.


The people who get the money are often*
| not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on
| investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion.
|
| Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| money starve and end up working at McDonald's.

Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.

|
| * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
| researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
| investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining
| funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
| soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a book
| with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate network of
| inter-related research.
|
| As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but I
| was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
| other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
| material in school and never cheated in my entire life.
|
If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
paper goes in the waste bin.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:25:28 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
... | Science requires
an objective and utterly honest person. |

That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
a spade a spade and a ****wit a ****wit, which upset the ****wits.

Ironically, I'm in a situation right now (and once again!) where honesty,
ethics and competence are not well regarded. :-D

| Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide
the | money are ignorant of science.

No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.

My experience is that it is some guy in the government, often the
military. All in all, my experience has been that the military reviewers
are more tech savy than the company management, who's attitude is "I
don't know what the hell was in your paper, but the Air Force Guys loved
it, so you get funding."

The people who get the money are often*
| not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on |
investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion. |
| Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| money starve and end up working at McDonald's.

Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.

I did, and you can't always be honest. 30 years ago I could, but not in
today's environment. They make a big deal about ethics in engineering,
and it's because it is so much CHEAPER to shave a little (some times a
hell of a lot!) off public safety here and there.

I'd elaborate, but the company's idea of "ethics" is not exposing their
unethical behavior.

|
| * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
| researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
| investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining |
funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
| soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a
book | with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate
network of | inter-related research.
|
| As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but
I | was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
| other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
| material in school and never cheated in my entire life. |
If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
paper goes in the waste bin.

True, but the cheaters get the jobs and the money. Honest ethical guys
are a pain in the ass and make the bottom line smaller.

Serious. This last week I wouldn't sign off on the engineering paper
because it flatly was wrong, and some other engineer said he would, even
though there is a problem. He said it boldly and right to my face. He
said his odds of being caught are pretty damned small, and I was stupid
not to sign it because the company will just get him or someone else to
sign it if I won't. There is no shortage of people who will sign off bad
engineering. Management gives lip service to ethics - I'll get a lateral
promotion and will not be in a position to sign off on engineering soon.

And he's right. I expect I'll have that duty taken from me very soon.

There was on job I was training for 20 years ago, and they asked me about
the product. I said it violated federal regulations and I quoted the regs
chapter and verse and showed the design didn't even come close to meeting
it. I was out of that program from that moment on.

As you say, honesty and ethics are not endearing qualities in today's
culture. 50 years ago, yes. Now? No. The words they used were "career
limiting".

On Sep 4, 4:20*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:16:47 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:10*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:03:43 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:50*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:33:57 -0700, mpc755 wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
* *http://www.csicop.org/si/show/

field_guide_to_critical_thinking/









* *http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

About the Author
* * * * * * *James Lett is a Professor of Anthropology,
* * * * * * *Department of Social Sciences, Indian River
* * * * * * *Community College, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
* * * * * * *Pierce, FL 34981. He is author of The Human
* * * * * * *Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to
* * * * * * *Anthropologcal Theory and Science, Reason,
* * * * * * *and Anthropology: The Principles of Rational
* * * * * * *Inquiry (1997, Rowman and Littlefield
* * * * * * *Publishers). He can be reached by e-mail at
* * * * * * *the following address:

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
* *http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...s/Cranks..html

What is a crank?

Let's define a crank.

I would say a crank is someone who ignores something fundamental
to a generally accepted theory.

Let's suppose the person who figured out general relativity
states, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

You "figured that out", huh?

It would be obvious according to any definition of crank that
anyone who insists there is no ether in relativity is a crank.

We'll put this in the "anyone who disagrees with mpc755 is a crank
file, and treat it with the respect it is due.

It is anyone who disagrees with Einstein is a crank file.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable".

Newsflash: Einstein didn't understand GR very well. Hilbert told him
how to solve the equations.

But I tend to not like people who intentionally take quotes out of
context.

"Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked
through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Which kinda put the lie to your idiot posting, huh?

Now, go troll somewhere else. Why not share your genius with
sci.chemistry. Why do all the asswipes have to come to sci.physics?

snip intentional lies

Which is exactly what I am saying. Einstein said, "According to the
general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."

Asshole. I point out you took it out of context, and then you quote it
out of context AGAIN.

This is why I killfile clowns like you.

Mind you, I'm more than open minded towards Modified theories of gravity,
but idiots like you can't even state what's wrong, mathematically, with
GR.

That's the whole point. GR is correct when it relates to matter and
its connections with the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

Are you implying Einstein was stating:

the state of that which does not exist is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of that which does not exist
in neighboring places?

Are you that delusional?

What Einstein was referring to is the state of the aether at every
place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of
the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the
aether.

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

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:25:28 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
| ... | Science requires
| an objective and utterly honest person. |
|
| That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
| a spade a spade and a ****wit a ****wit, which upset the ****wits.
|
| Ironically, I'm in a situation right now (and once again!) where honesty,
| ethics and competence are not well regarded. :-D

That's normal behaviour, what's ironic about it? Few (on usenet) have
liked me for well over ten years but since they are dishonest, unethical
and incompetent, I'm not bothered by their emotional responses. I
use naughty words deliberately just to provoke them, and it succeeds.
It costs me nothing but their false friendship, which I do not seek..



| | Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide
| the | money are ignorant of science.
|
| No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
| elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.
|
| My experience is that it is some guy in the government, often the
| military. All in all, my experience has been that the military reviewers
| are more tech savy than the company management, who's attitude is "I
| don't know what the hell was in your paper, but the Air Force Guys loved
| it, so you get funding."

The first purpose of the military is to kill people, that's what they train
for.
The second purpose is to defend territory against attack by opposing
militaries.
The third purpose is to attack other militaries to capture their territory.
The fourth purpose is to defend trade, so selling opium to the Chinese
in exchange for tea needs a gunboat up the Yangtse to put down the
Boxer rebellion or German U-boats attacking convoys need destroyers
to oppose them.
The fifth purpose of the military is to defend "the people" against
rebellion
by the people, so four students were shot dead at Kent State on Monday,
May 4, 1970 in the USA and Gaddafi is still alive in Libya in 2011.
The sixth purpose of the military is to march up and down in pretty clothes
looking tough and demonstrating their ability to follow orders.
And yes, I've supported the military as an engineer, always wondering
how much blood is indirectly on my hands. That's scary.

| The people who get the money are often*
| | not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on |
| investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion. |
| | Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| | money starve and end up working at McDonald's.
|
| Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.
|
| I did, and you can't always be honest. 30 years ago I could, but not in
| today's environment. They make a big deal about ethics in engineering,
| and it's because it is so much CHEAPER to shave a little (some times a
| hell of a lot!) off public safety here and there.

Concorde crashed. Ok, the cause was debris on the runway, but I
helped build that plane. Two Harriers took off from the deck of HMS
Hermes in the Falklands and never came back. Nobody knows what
happened to them. I help build and install the flight simulator that
trained the pilots. Was there anything I could have done differently?
No, I did my best. Honesty, ethics and competence are still highly
regarded, by ME.

| I'd elaborate, but the company's idea of "ethics" is not exposing their
| unethical behavior.

That's your call. I'm still bound by the Official Secrets Act that I signed
up to many years ago so I do understand, although what I know is now
redundant. Harriers have been scrapped.

|
| |
| | * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
| | researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
| | investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining |
| funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
| | soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a
| book | with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate
| network of | inter-related research.
| |
| | As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but
| I | was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
| | other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
| | material in school and never cheated in my entire life. |
| If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
| paper goes in the waste bin.
|
| True, but the cheaters get the jobs and the money. Honest ethical guys
| are a pain in the ass and make the bottom line smaller.
|
| Serious. This last week I wouldn't sign off on the engineering paper
| because it flatly was wrong, and some other engineer said he would, even
| though there is a problem. He said it boldly and right to my face. He
| said his odds of being caught are pretty damned small, and I was stupid
| not to sign it because the company will just get him or someone else to
| sign it if I won't. There is no shortage of people who will sign off bad
| engineering. Management gives lip service to ethics - I'll get a lateral
| promotion and will not be in a position to sign off on engineering soon.
|
| And he's right. I expect I'll have that duty taken from me very soon.
|
| There was on job I was training for 20 years ago, and they asked me about
| the product. I said it violated federal regulations and I quoted the regs
| chapter and verse and showed the design didn't even come close to meeting
| it. I was out of that program from that moment on.
|
| As you say, honesty and ethics are not endearing qualities in today's
| culture. 50 years ago, yes. Now? No. The words they used were "career
| limiting".

The time to start your own business is now. You no longer belong in the
work place environment, you've gotten older and wiser.

Le 04/09/11 13:04, Androcles a écrit :
"jacob wrote in message
...
| Le 04/09/11 10:29, Androcles a écrit :
| "jacob wrote in message
| ...
| | Le 03/09/11 22:21, Androcles a écrit :
| | "jacob 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****.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | "Androcles" is unable to put forward any arguments, as
| | always. Just insults, polemic, whatever.
| |
| ****head "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as
always.
| Just assertion, bull****, whatever.
| Here's an argument, you ****ing imbecile, and you have no logical
| answer, you can't read mathematics.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
|
| OK, I went to that page and in the article *YOU* cite I can read:
|
|quote
| The previous Muon Storage Ring experiment at CERN reported a value of
| the muon lifetime in flight for a relativistic factor of approx 12
| which agreed within 1% with the predicted value obtained by applying
| the above Einstein time dilation factor to the measured lifetime at
| rest. Here we report separate measurements for mu+ and mu- with a
factor
| of 29.33, which are an order of magnitude more precise and which show
| that the predictions of special relativity obtain ever under
| accelerations as large as 10e18g and down to distances less than
| 10e-15cm.
|end quote
|
| In that article the scientists produce yet another experimental
| confirmation of relativity.

Bwhahahaha!
The mean life of a muon is 64 microseconds and NOBODY has measured
it to be any different.

Bwhahahaha! (as you say)

The rest mass of the muon can be derived from beta decay and it was done
so by Enrico Fermi quite a few years ago. There is a reference to that
in the article in

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm



You *should* carefully read the stuff you cite.

Another reference is in:

http://instructor.physics.lsa.umich....onLifetime.pdf
page 2

Another source that gives the same equation is wikipedia

The value of the muon rest mass can be verified with the interactions
in pion decay, see:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v20/i11/p2692_1 (1979)



****head "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as
always.
Just assertion, bull****, whatever.

yeah sure

Le 04/09/11 17:18, mpc755 a écrit :
On Sep 4, 11:09 am, wrote:

the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,

Matter is condensations of aether.


Mmmm Interesting.


Do you have any experimental evidence for this assertion?


If "condensation" means what it means in a normal language,
aether should be lighter than any matter, and composed of...


well...


WHAT?


What is this "aether" made of?



Matter evaporates into aether.


Sure sure. Do you have any experimental evidence of that?

How long should I cook matter so that it "evaporates" into aether?

1 second?

1 million years?


E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.

Aether and matter have mass.



If aether has mass, it must have some material. What is the aether made
of?

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.


So, aether is energy, and mass evaporates into energy.


or not? Aether is "energy" in your newspeak?


For example, when an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into
aether. The matter expands as it transitions to aether. The physical
effects this transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is
defined as E=mc^2.

On Sep 3, 6:38*pm, GSS wrote:
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.../Home/book_fil...

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.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

-------------------------
you ddint innovate much:
manythings you said above were climes before you
evn by me Y.Porat

for instance
i said it much shorter and bluntly
for instance:
''one of the greatest disasyers that happened to 'modern physics was
that dunb mathematicians that understand only mathematics
took over physics !!
physics is far of being only mathematics
moreover only current amthematics
can cope only very little with real physics problems
just a few days ago
i published here a short article called:

'not all particles can be defined by
mathematical formula ''
and i am in middle of explaing it

i claomed long ago that
CURVED SPACE TIME IS A HUGE WAIST OF HUMAN RESOURCES !
SPACE IS NOTHING
AND HAVE NO PROPERTIES EXCEPT
HOSTING MASS !!
insteadof that
i suggested the CIRCLON
abery basic particle that moves naturally
in curved paths
not because something is forcing it
but that is as 'it was born (a
new basic paradigm that has to repalce
curved space
2
i claimes the first time in history of physics that
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
that is aborting immediately the
W of Z particles
the only 3 or 4 Quarks with 90 percent mass
as builders of the Proton (Neutron )
i found and proved that the photon has
nonzero mass (about exp-90 Kilograms)

2
yet you have to be selective

SR (unlike GR !!) is right !!!
it is based on the fact that
as velocity becomes bigger and bigger
it becomes more difficult to add more velocity !!
TIME is not absolute:

you have no time without movement !!
so
time is nothing but relative comparison
of motion realtive to some
CHOSEN MOTION REFERENCE 11
iow
there is no 'absolute time !!!
and by that Einstein is right
including all that is acociated with movement !!!
3
i developed a new model of the
Atom and nucleus
much of it cannot be described and defined
only by only current mathematics !!!

copyrights of
Y.Porat
----------------------

so
''the devil is in the details
and you cant say that all modrn physics
is wrong !!

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
| Le 04/09/11 13:04, Androcles a écrit :
| "jacob wrote in message
| ...
| | Le 04/09/11 10:29, Androcles a écrit :
| | "jacob wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Le 03/09/11 22:21, Androcles a écrit :
| | | "jacob 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****.
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | "Androcles" is unable to put forward any arguments, as
| | | always. Just insults, polemic, whatever.
| | |
| | ****head "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as
| always.
| | Just assertion, bull****, whatever.
| | Here's an argument, you ****ing imbecile, and you have no logical
| | answer, you can't read mathematics.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
| |
| | OK, I went to that page and in the article *YOU* cite I can read:
| |
| |quote
| | The previous Muon Storage Ring experiment at CERN reported a value of
| | the muon lifetime in flight for a relativistic factor of approx 12
| | which agreed within 1% with the predicted value obtained by applying
| | the above Einstein time dilation factor to the measured lifetime at
| | rest. Here we report separate measurements for mu+ and mu- with a
| factor
| | of 29.33, which are an order of magnitude more precise and which show
| | that the predictions of special relativity obtain ever under
| | accelerations as large as 10e18g and down to distances less than
| | 10e-15cm.
| |end quote
| |
| | In that article the scientists produce yet another experimental
| | confirmation of relativity.
|
| Bwhahahaha!
| The mean life of a muon is 64 microseconds and NOBODY has measured
| it to be any different.
|
| Bwhahahaha! (as you say)
|
| The rest mass of the muon

Lemme see...

1) Idiot navia claims Androcles is unable to put forward any arguments.
2) then the ****ing idiot navia COPIES text from Androcles' page as if
nobody else could read it.
3) Stupid ****ing idiot navia then IGNORES Androcles' argument.
4) Deranged stupid ****ing idiot navia now confuses mass with life span.

How much do you weigh, navia?
Oh, about 75 years, says deranged stupid ****ing idiot navia....

If that doesn't confirm relativity is for raving lunatics like navia then
nothing will.


| Just assertion, bull****, whatever.
|
| yeah sure

Just assertion, bull****, whatever.
Get lost, navia, your are dead from the neck up. Go on, **** off, you
imbecile.

On Sep 4, 7:08*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 04/09/11 17:18, mpc755 a écrit :

On Sep 4, 11:09 am, *wrote:

the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 *is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,

Matter is condensations of aether.

Mmmm Interesting.

Do you have any experimental evidence for this assertion?

If "condensation" means what it means in a normal language,
aether should be lighter than any matter, and composed of...

well...

WHAT?

What is this "aether" made of?

Matter evaporates into aether.

Sure sure. Do you have any experimental evidence of that?

How long should I cook matter so that it "evaporates" into aether?

1 second?

1 million years?

E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.

Aether and matter have mass.

If aether has mass, it must have some material. What is the aether made
of?

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

So, aether is energy, and mass evaporates into energy.

or not? Aether is "energy" in your newspeak?


'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.

Matter is condensations of aether.

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.

Matter evaporates into aether.

As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.

Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

When you watch a video of an atomic bomb explosion you are witnessing
the physical effects matter converting to aether has on the
neighboring matter and aether. The physical effects are energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_oueK1OQYA

Aether is the base material of matter. Aether is the base material,
period.

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

This can be interpret to mean it can not be known if ether consists of
particles or not.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."

Since aether is the base material and it can not be known if aether
consists of particles or not, there isn't anything aether is made of
besides aether itself.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.