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 2 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
Author Message
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
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:17 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Quote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> kirjoitti viestissä
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i5m9at1oljkhj5v78n@4ax.com...
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.

Yet for all your idiotic posting, you have not once proven that general
relativity is not an accurate model of reality.

I asked this of you months ago and you simply refused.

Quote:

Henry Haapalainen
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:38 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:40:58 +0300, "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> kirjoitti viestissä
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i5m9at1oljkhj5v78n@4ax.com...
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.

Well he certainly made the mistakes but I don't agree with the rest....although
I accept that 'free fall' is probably the normal state of matter.

Two round balls falling down a column of liquid are definitely attracted BY
FORCES. Maybe gravity is analogous in some way.

Quote:

Henry Haapalainen



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

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


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:41 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151346839.535222.144780@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Harry wrote:
[...]


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.


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.

[...]


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.

[...]

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].

You certainly misunderstood another statement by Henry (inside [...]) .

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.

Lorentz wasn't much interested in those issues but there are a few others.
Some papers by Ives and Builder explain that opinion rather well I think.
But what do you mean with a "decent" reference? JOSA, Austr.J.P., Phys.Rev.,
Nature, or what?

[..]

Harald
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:56 am    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.

The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.

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).

Then it isn't outlandish, is it?

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.

I'm not sure I follow what you think the distinction is. Lorentz
posited a physical process which affected the inherent physical
properties of objects. Einstein asserted that these properties are what
we *measure*, and that there is no deeper (inherent)
observer-independent quality that these are expressions of.

Quote:

The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world.

I don't know why you would say that.

Quote:
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".

Those are certainly possible answers, though not the only ones.
Moreover, these answers appear to be the wrong ones.

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".

And why would you need them to become real "physical" effects, whatever
that means?

Quote:

There are no other answers.

That would be a position of ignorance.

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.



PD
Back to top
dwhig265@aol.com
science forum addict


Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
Quote:
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".

Hi Henri: You've almost got it right. But the aether itself requires a
refrence frame to which it is absolutely stationary. That is the
absolute reference frame and has to be the center of the universe.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham
http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/myhomepage/index.html
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

In article <1151423209.920857.36890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
<dwhig265@aol.com> wrote:

Quote:
http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/myhomepage/index.html

Whats this - physics comedy? Stick to your day job - washing dishes?

--
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: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.

If it were true that decision is taken as HW asserts, it would be wrong

then
and still is wrong. Fortunately for the world, that is not the
official verdict to
physicists, only to those pseudophysicists who frequent these ngs, like
you.

For some psychological reason, you wish to believe that verdict is
true. It
isn't, and that makes you the laughing stock of the physics community.
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).

Then it isn't outlandish, is it?

Wrong again. It isn't that now that you've gotten indoctrinated with

it, but at
the time it came out it was indeed extremely unusual and bizarre.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151431530.173601.106530@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| > Henri Wilson wrote:
| > > 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.
| >
| > The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
| > SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
| >
| If it were true that decision is taken as HW asserts, it would be wrong
| then
| and still is wrong. Fortunately for the world, that is not the
| official verdict to
| physicists, only to those pseudophysicists who frequent these ngs, like
| you.
|
| For some psychological reason, you wish to believe that verdict is
| true. It
| isn't, and that makes you the laughing stock of the physics community.
| > >
| > > 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).
| >
| > Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
| >
| Wrong again. It isn't that now that you've gotten indoctrinated with
| it, but at
| the time it came out it was indeed extremely unusual and bizarre.
|

Phuckwit Duck:
" I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]"
-- Phuckwit Duck.

PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
how
you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
shithead
and arsehole.
Androcles
Back to top
Spoonfed (www.spoonfedrel
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:41 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.


If LT = Lorentz Transformation, then the theory you are describing is
not an aether theory. It is a coordinate transform mapping events from
one coordinate system to another. If you've got access to a good
library, read the last couple of chapters of "Fields of Force." It is
a nice historic account of the problem you are discussing.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151437293.759645.293490@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > 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.
| >
|
| If LT = Lorentz Transformation, then the theory you are describing is
| not an aether theory. It is a coordinate transform mapping events from
| one coordinate system to another. If you've got access to a good
| library, read the last couple of chapters of "Fields of Force." It is
| a nice historic account of the problem you are discussing.

Henri is taking the piss, you dumb cluck! Fuckin' hell, are you ever
wet behind the ears, spookfood!
Androcles
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:22 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151431530.173601.106530@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
how
you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
shithead
and arsehole.
Androcles

In your case, Androcles, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
run into something that's patently wrong.

Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same amount of
energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed, and still
come out to be just under c by the time they leave the scintillator.
You say, "I don't know HOW it does that, but it's sure more believable
than time dilation." Apparently, to spit out something you thing is
hogwash, you'd be happy to swallow something from further down the
colon.

PD
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Harry wrote:

[...]

Quote:

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].

You certainly misunderstood another statement by Henry (inside [...]) .

I'm used to how Henri argues and how he sets up future arguments.

Then again I might have misunderstood, it has been known to happen. But
since the probability of actually learning something releated to
physics from Henri is nil, I'm not too worried about it.

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.

Lorentz wasn't much interested in those issues but there are a few others.
Some papers by Ives and Builder explain that opinion rather well I think.
But what do you mean with a "decent" reference? JOSA, Austr.J.P., Phys.Rev.,
Nature, or what?

Any of the above.

It is just nice to have a whole lot more wheat and a whole lot less
chaffe, you know?

A decent article about the hunt for the aether was in a 2004 Physics
Today. Specifically, aether and breaking Lorentz invariance. Things
like the MMX and its' many descendants are mentioned.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)


Quote:

[..]

Harald
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.

If SR is correct then so must be LET. SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame

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.

Since when?
There is no believable proof of that Tom.

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.

Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical connection.
Contractions are actually REAL.

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.

Is it?
Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
those effects.
There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.

Quote:
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.

Well, I have often wondered if the laws of maths would exist in the absence of
everything alse.
I believe they would.

Quote:
After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
the real
universe without including an ether.

I don't accept that an absolute universal aether exists. Maybe local aetherlike
frames exist but that is all.

Quote:
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.

If you want an aether, you have to cope with the concept of a 'physical'
infinity.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

Yes, OK.



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: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

[...]

It is like watching two retards trying to solve the secrets of the
universe because they read a book once. Actually, that is exactly what
is going on.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:06 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: 0.6237s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2468s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]