FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
This is What Einstein Actually Did.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
Author Message
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:19 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson The Envious Imbecile wrote:
<snipped>

And you are a stinking cunt. Dismissed.
Back to top
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:25 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i5m9at1oljkhj5v78n@4ax.com...
Quote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.

Sure plus tons of other stuff you don't bother to mention as explained by
Tom in:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com

Quote:

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted
his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the
same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with
the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the
claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of
course is
what Einstein believed in himself.

For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as
being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up
travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN
ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".

As usual your logic is attorciaious.

Quote:
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become
real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute
reference
frame".

There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
concepts.

Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser

Yea right - the verdict on you however is far more certain - and it is not
flattering.

Bill

Quote:
and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

This will be amusing, I gurantee it.

Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably
be funny as hell.

Quote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.

Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are
mathematically equivalent.

Quote:

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
and SR.

Quote:

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

Now Henri starts to mangle the development of relativity because he
doesn't understand how or why it was developed.

Einstein didn't develop SR based on "constant measured OWLS", no matter
how many times Henri asserts that he did. Henri also foolishly believes
his Galilean method of synchornization (as best as I can tell, Henri
never actually says anything concrete about his theory) is the same as
the SR/LET version. Which is asinine because his "Ballistic" theory is
Galileian with absolute time which is manifestly different from special
relativity.


Quote:

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

Of course Henri can't actually support this wild supposition about how
Einstein developed SR. Henri also seems to not understand exactly what
the contractions in SR mean, which is par for the course.

Quote:

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
what Einstein believed in himself.

Fascinating!

Time and again folks on this newsgroup have shown how SR accurately
represents reality, and Henri's only argument is that the experiments
were faked. When I have asked Henri to do some experiments himself, he
refuses.

I am also extremely amused that Henri asserts Einstein believed in an
aether, even though it is documented that Einstein did NOT believe in
the aether. Then again, facts never really did mean much to Henri.

Quote:

For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".

The cognitive dissonance required to maintiain this viewpoint must be
staggering. One one hand, Henri completely dismisses any predictive
value of relativity while saying his Galilean theory accurately
predicts what relativity predicts.

Quote:
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
frame".

Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
century of physicists who have been looking.

Quote:

There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.

Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
mathematics even though they are philosophically different.

Quote:

Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.

Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
statistical mechanics.

Quote:





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:27 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 25 Jun 2006 17:31:07 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This will be amusing, I gurantee it.


Now that the SRian baboon brigade has made its usual unintelligible
contribution, can we have some sensible discussion?

Einstein's theory was nothing more than LET in disguise.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:34 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson the Cretin Imbecile wrote:
<idiotic tribulation of a cretin amateur snipped>

Cunt, the physics has long progressed past special relativity, learn
how to deny GR, you are "passee" (and fully irrelevant)
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:47 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i5m9at1oljkhj5v78n@4ax.com...
| Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
null
| result via his LTs.


The Lorentz-Fitgerald contraction was far from satisfactory, a quick rush
job
like your worbits. You are so fucked up its incredible.
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:41 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151281867.540175.8920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This will be amusing, I gurantee it.

Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably
be funny as hell.

Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
MMX null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.

Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are
mathematically equivalent.

Your reading differs from mine; apparently Henri correctly points out that
many textbooks ("official") don't understand that either.
Probably you are too biased against Henry's writings to notice the
statements that aren't wrong. But regretfully your bias is not without
reason, see further.

Quote:
It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
and SR.

Is there any essential difference in what you state and what he states? I
don't think so. However, I see the shadow of a grave misunderstanding in the
above statement by Henri. Let's read on...

Quote:
Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to
be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

Now Henri starts to mangle the development of relativity because he
doesn't understand how or why it was developed.

Here I can't but agree with Eric: without the "Einstein" clock
synchronization one won't obtain a measured "OW speed of light as being c"!

Quote:
Einstein didn't develop SR based on "constant measured OWLS", no matter
how many times Henri asserts that he did.

Regretfully some textbooks suggest so. Indeed there is no need for it as
some modern derivations demonstrate.

Quote:
Henri also foolishly believes
his Galilean method of synchornization (as best as I can tell, Henri
never actually says anything concrete about his theory) is the same as
the SR/LET version. Which is asinine because his "Ballistic" theory is
Galileian with absolute time which is manifestly different from special
relativity.


Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the
same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

Of course Henri can't actually support this wild supposition about how
Einstein developed SR. Henri also seems to not understand exactly what
the contractions in SR mean, which is par for the course.


The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection
with the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the
claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of
course is
what Einstein believed in himself.

Fascinating!

Time and again folks on this newsgroup have shown how SR accurately
represents reality, and Henri's only argument is that the experiments
were faked. When I have asked Henri to do some experiments himself, he
refuses.

I am also extremely amused that Henri asserts Einstein believed in an
aether, even though it is documented that Einstein did NOT believe in
the aether. Then again, facts never really did mean much to Henri.

On that point both of you are sloppy, as if you don't know that "Einstein
believed in an aether" and "Einstein did NOT believe in the aether" are
both roughly correct.

Quote:
For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as
being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up
travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN
ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".

The cognitive dissonance required to maintiain this viewpoint must be
staggering. One one hand, Henri completely dismisses any predictive
value of relativity while saying his Galilean theory accurately
predicts what relativity predicts.

That is very much off-topic... but at the same time, staggering indeed!

Quote:
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become
real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute
reference
frame".

Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
century of physicists who have been looking.

You confuse logic with measurements. In the mainstream literature that logic
has been presented several times by different scientists and in none of
those instances have I seen it challenged in follow-up articles (using Web
of Science). I may have overlooked it of course, and would appreciate a
reference to such an article.

Quote:
There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
concepts.

Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
mathematics even though they are philosophically different.

Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he put
forward, if I read it correctly.

Quote:
Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.

Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
statistical mechanics.

Plus he overlooked Einstein's contributions to SRT itself.

Harald
Back to top
dead_paul
science forum addict


Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:14 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:54:11 +0000, HW wrote:

Quote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
null result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was
still taken as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the
official verdict.

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions', it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through
the aether will always MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
BEGAN with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
seemingly didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
concocted his outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just
happens to be correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the
same mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although
his 'contractions were observational rather than physical.

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with
the real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the
claims of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which
of course is what Einstein believed in himself.

And of course persuing einsteins little trick leads to increasingly insane
notions about the universe.
Back to top
dead_paul
science forum addict


Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:19 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:31:07 -0700, Eric Gisse wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This will be amusing, I gurantee it.

Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably be
funny as hell.

Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
MMX null result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result
was still taken as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still
the official verdict.

Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are mathematically
equivalent.

There is nothing equivalent about the two.

SR is a trick that produces some numbers that agree with the reality. As a
model SR is completely useless.
LET on the otherhand is a step in the right direction towards formulating
an understanding about the universe.
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

In article <e7obhq$thn$1@nntp.aioe.org>, Dead Paul <dead_paul@no.reply>
wrote:

Quote:

There is nothing equivalent about the two.

SR is a trick that produces some numbers that agree with the reality. As a
model SR is completely useless.
LET on the otherhand is a step in the right direction towards formulating
an understanding about the universe.

Of course it does. SR and GR work, thats what agreeing with reality
means

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.

I heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try

that.
There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,

but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
foolish
to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in

physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
out
of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
the
official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
who
post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
Quote:

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE

actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
definition"
you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
apt
description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
that
it appears to be true.
Quote:

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical

research
and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
as non-physical as anything can be.
Quote:

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
what Einstein believed in himself.

Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have

to
accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
math
is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
There
is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
it exits
in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.

On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
physical
connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
reality,
true, but it is an excellent tool for us. By necessity, all our tools
have a
connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
tools
for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
the
teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
it
will be used to count real objects.

After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
the real
universe without including an ether. My model suggests one that does
not
conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
in a
better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
posters.

For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
here in
these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
me
your email address to: typropress@yahoo.com. It's a work in progress
still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
you are
willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just

in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
can
post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
so
whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
first
pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
work.
Quote:

For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".

Yes, I agree with that.

Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
frame".

Yes, again I agree with that.

There are no other answers.

It is not the scientific way - nor the common-sense way (since some

here
believe there is a difference between those terms) - to ever say never,

because, as soon as you say it, sure enough, someone comes up with
another one. However, I agree that until that happens, your above is a

true representation of the reality we must face when we decide to
embark
on making theories that explain our world.
Quote:

Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.

Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.

AE was a survivor in a world that conspired against his genius, and

while
you may be right in saying all that you say above about him, we are the

better for his perseverence against the outstanding odds he and many
others throughout Man's history who have had to argue against status
quo powers-that-be. By yours and my statements here, we're doing all
we
can to get ourselves heard here in this cacophonous din of conformity.
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:33 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Harry wrote:
[...]

Quote:

Your reading differs from mine; apparently Henri correctly points out that
many textbooks ("official") don't understand that either.
Probably you are too biased against Henry's writings to notice the
statements that aren't wrong. But regretfully your bias is not without
reason, see further.

My bias has a historical anchor in reality. Henri occasionally makes a
statement that isn't wrong, but he usually says it for the wrong reason
or in a way that is simply annoying as all hell.

Quote:

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
and SR.

Is there any essential difference in what you state and what he states? I
don't think so. However, I see the shadow of a grave misunderstanding in the
above statement by Henri. Let's read on...

Henri focuses on one-way light speed for no particular reason. My
understanding of LET may be shaky, but I'm certain what I said is true
in SR.

[...]

Quote:

I am also extremely amused that Henri asserts Einstein believed in an
aether, even though it is documented that Einstein did NOT believe in
the aether. Then again, facts never really did mean much to Henri.

On that point both of you are sloppy, as if you don't know that "Einstein
believed in an aether" and "Einstein did NOT believe in the aether" are
both roughly correct.

I'm aware of Einstein's beliefs on the matter. I had to think for a few
minutes as to how to write the paragraph above. I wanted to say
Einstein did not believe in the 19th century version of the aether as
Henri envisions, but he would simply distort it to say "ah-HA! Einstein
does believe in the aether!". It is my understanding that the aether
[aether or ether? I could never tell.] Einstein believed in was so
wildly different than from what is classically known as the aether that
it was doing a disservice by confusing hte issue.

[...]

Quote:
Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
century of physicists who have been looking.

You confuse logic with measurements. In the mainstream literature that logic
has been presented several times by different scientists and in none of
those instances have I seen it challenged in follow-up articles (using Web
of Science). I may have overlooked it of course, and would appreciate a
reference to such an article.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying you want an example of
folks looking for the aether? If so, I have something in mind. I did
make that statement secure in the knowledge that people have been
looking *really really hard*, and are much more qualified than Henri
and his ilk [and myself, for that matter].

Quote:

There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
concepts.

Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
mathematics even though they are philosophically different.

Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he put
forward, if I read it correctly.

Remember what I said about cognitive dissonance?

Henri seems to view LET as "acceptable" and SR as "unacceptable". They
have wildly different philosophical bases, but make the same
predictions. Then again, my understanding of LET is on shaky ground. I
would love a decent reference that explains LET without being burdened
by the babbling of cranks.

Quote:

Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.

Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
statistical mechanics.

Plus he overlooked Einstein's contributions to SRT itself.

Of course he did!

I can't tell if Henri hates Einstein and thus hates SR, or hates SR and
thus hates Einstein.

Quote:

Harald
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Dead Paul wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:31:07 -0700, Eric Gisse wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

This will be amusing, I gurantee it.

Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably be
funny as hell.

Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
MMX null result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result
was still taken as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still
the official verdict.

Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are mathematically
equivalent.

There is nothing equivalent about the two.

SR is a trick that produces some numbers that agree with the reality. As a
model SR is completely useless.
LET on the otherhand is a step in the right direction towards formulating
an understanding about the universe.

The phrase for today is definitely "cognitive dissonance".
Back to top
Henry Haapalainen
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:40 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> kirjoitti viestissä
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i5m9at1oljkhj5v78n@4ax.com...
Quote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted
his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the
same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with
the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the
claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of
course is
what Einstein believed in himself.

For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as
being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up
travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN
ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become
real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute
reference
frame".

There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
concepts.

Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong idea. It is

a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.

Henry Haapalainen
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henry Haapalainen The Cretin Finn wrote:

Quote:
Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong idea. It is
a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.

Henry Haapalainen

....and you spend every hour of your miserable life munching on a fresh
piece of s**t.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:08 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.3018s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2506s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]