|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"mpc755" wrote: 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 = m / L^3 ... or what? A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. m*v = A * sin(t) .... or what? Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. F / m = A / G ... or what? So, put in the correct equation, Cavedon. Stop singing! Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions. Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math! Get the Aether show on the road, guys. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
Le 03/09/11 22:25, Pentcho Valev a écrit :
On Sep 3, 10:10 pm, jacob 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: And in the rest of your reply you do NOT even mention the experimental result I cited. Nothing, not a word. You are unable to argue it away. It is an experimental confirmation of a theory that you say is wrong. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"jacob navia" 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 3, 6:38*pm, GSS wrote:
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... That was a very well written article by you however the real issue is not what Einstein and his contemporaries did but rather what happened in the late 17th century Royal Society England where the real issues have to be dealt with,after all,there is a feedback loop between the toxic strain of empiricism that arose with Newton and the attempts of the guys in the early 20th century to deal with it as best they could,unfortunately it meant creating a bigger can of worms centering around absolute/relative time,space and motion. You may assume that the work of Newton represents a natural progression from Galileo back through Kepler and on the great work that began with Copernicus however the format Newton used to center his agenda based on making no distinction between the behavior of objects at a human level and planetary dynamics does not just take liberties with the geometrical language of astronomy but distorts it to such a degree that the original insights are unrecognizable.It would help if empiricists themselves were interested in what Isaac was actually doing with those absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions but the incentive doesn't seem to be there even though his distortions are fairly matter of fact ones and the payoff for physicists in many,many magnitudes more than retaining the structure which asks too much of experimental sciences and astronomy. Despite his obfuscations,intentional or not,Newton clarifies a conception just long enough to shed light on everything that follows,the chances are that first time readers either won't grasp the offending passage or will run to Isaac's defense while this is merely laying out the physical considerations which do not tally with the original language which produced the idea of a rotating and orbiting Earth - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton It should be as offensive to an experimentalist as it is for an astronomer as the antecedent empirical sciences never overreached with the analogies as they applied to cause and effect drawn down from planetary dynamics never mind trying to bump up experimental sciences to planetary dynamics,solar system structure and cosmological evolution.The empiricists prior to Newton were actually getting a lot of work done and while much of it was later attributed to Newton,it does not take away from the fact that what once was the start of a really productive agenda to link cause and effect and apply it as loose analogies between,say,planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects,that productive area disappeared when followers chained themselves to Newton's concept which attempt to say too much with too little information.An example of the productive nature of empiricism before the all-sing,all-dancing agenda Isaac introduced can be found in many of the letters that preceded Isaac's distortions - http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false The upshot is that there will be no new revolutions nor anything worthwhile that will contain the attention of the wider population unless this is dealt with properly and while people may not care as long as they are getting paid,it won't account for those people who genuinely feel the loss of stature which is causing both empirical sciences and astronomy to crumble like a train wreck happening in slow motion. 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/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
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. My theory that you are just a crackpot is confirmed (again). I can confidently predict that you will answer with even more insults, confirming (again) my theory: you are just a crackpot. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"jacob navia" 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. Here comes a muon, lifetime 64 usec. SR say it should be 2.2 usec at rest, so it must be zipping along and time dilated back up to 64 usec! SR proves SR! You are ****ing mad if you believe that ****. You can't do the math anymore than the morons could in the paper I cited. Asserting what they assert doesn't mean diddly squat, dumb****! You didn't read what I wrote about it, did you, ya ****ing imbecile? ****head "jacob navia" just argues without a shred of evidence, as always. Just assertion, bull****, whatever. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
In article , says...
Problem is, that physics is an experimental science. Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments. See here at the 13 min mark - http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988# Example 1 (contrary example) I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. The point defined by where the pendulum disc is, all the way to the left, say, of it's swing where it stops for a moment before swinging back, is the point coming straight toward us. The light successively gets to me faster between these periods so I observe that clock to speed up. Goodbye time dilation! Example 2 (proper analysis) Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR. I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them. Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant to any change in the accelerated clock in comparison to the claimed dilation of Relativity due to the relative v. The conditions of force and mass dictating both clock's periods has been the same, as per relativity's 1st postulate, so 20 ticks of one clock is exactly the same as 20 tics of the other. Most people think that time dilation means that time is actually passing at different rates from one observer to the other but it is not. Relativity itself states that this is "apparent", not actual. Yet some people claim there is no universal time, which is wrong. Experiments claim to have measured relative velocity time dilation and all are fraudulent lies. Anyone that understands that time dilation is an apparent thing rather than an actual thing knows that. All others are members of the sci-fi community. The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly, not that it actually does. So any clocks in an experiment like this should exhibit no difference whatsoever once together in the same FofR again, aside from the accelerations involved to move them away initially and then bring them back together later. How can an experiment measure a difference when both clocks are back in the same FofR when the difference was only ever claimed to have been "apparent" (not real), due to light speed and geometry, in the first place? Goodbye 2nd postulate and Lorentz/Einstein hack. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 3, 11:48*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"mpc755" wrote: * 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 = m / L^3 ... or what? A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. m*v = A * sin(t) .... or what? Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. F / m = A / G *... or what? So, put in the correct equation, Cavedon. Stop singing! Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions. Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math! Get the Aether show on the road, guys. '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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |