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 3 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
Author Message
Henry Haapalainen
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

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

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. (EG)

Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

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

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.

Why would you say that? The two have completely different conceptual
underpinnings and different experimental predictions.

Quote:
SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame

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.

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.

You mean it is real in the sense that something happens to the rod.
That is what you're calling REAL, and nothing else seems to work as
"real" for you.

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.

Quantitatively correct ones? No, there're not.

Quote:
There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.

Sure there is. Neutral kaons exhibit the very same effects as charged
particles. Where the hell have you been?

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.

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.

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.

Why?

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
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henry Haapalainen 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

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. (EG)

Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
accurate model of reality.

Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
reality. Do you understand that?

PD
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:05 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

In article <2Ciog.10437$5U4.10341@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> 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

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. (EG)

Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen



Yep, GR is an accurate model. Just your interpretation of it is
bollocks.

You're actually PROUD of that website? I'd ony recommend it to people
under the auspices of *100* *things* *idiots* *think* *physics*
*involves*

--
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
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:06 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

In article <sQiog.10439$_X4.5899@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

Quote:
Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
accurate model of reality.

Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
reality. Do you understand that?

PD

No, I don't understand that. HH

Figures.

--
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
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 27 Jun 2006 04:56:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.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.

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


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?

Einstein actually got it right...but for entirely the wrong reason....and he
became famous partly for this erroneous 'proclamation'.

Henri Wilson got it right for the RIGHT reasons yet his fame is so far
recognized by few outside this NG's intelligencia.

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.

According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of that.

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.

According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of 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.

Give me another then...

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?

A physical effect is like that which supposedly makes a GPS clock run slow
because it is moving wrt the GO. (of course, in actual fact it doesn't run
slow)

Quote:
There are no other answers.

That would be a position of ignorance.

That is the only way light from differently moving sources could find a common
travel speed.

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


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

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


Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1151449198.433991.316340@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
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

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. (EG)

Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
accurate model of reality.

Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
reality. Do you understand that?

PD

No, I don't understand that. HH
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

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.

....and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.

Quote:
Androcles






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: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 27 Jun 2006 08:46:49 -0700, dwhig265@aol.com wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
, "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".

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

If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.



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: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:13 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:49:54 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

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

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

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

Stick with you job as secretary of the SRian baboon brigade, piddlephuck.


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

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


Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Quote:
Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

(deleted)

Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:20 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

In article <v%iog.10442$5_4.5092@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

Quote:
Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

(deleted)

Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH



If you had the intelligence to check our headers, you'd see we're
different people. Believe it or not, more then one person thinks you're
nuts.

--
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
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:23 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1151449198.433991.316340@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
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

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. (EG)

Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
accurate model of reality.

Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
reality. Do you understand that?

PD

No, I don't understand that. HH

Then perhaps you need a primer on the scientific method in general.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
wrote:


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.

...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.


And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.

And how do you judge scientific ability, Henri? By whether they are
original or by whether they are right?

PD
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 27 Jun 2006 15:57:50 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

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

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.

Why would you say that? The two have completely different conceptual
underpinnings and different experimental predictions.

SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame

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.

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.

You mean it is real in the sense that something happens to the rod.
That is what you're calling REAL, and nothing else seems to work as
"real" for you.

SR says that if a clock or rod is sent into orbit, nothing actually happens to
the clock or rod. It then claims that the clocks and rods DO are observed to
change when measured by the original observer in the original frame and using
the original length and time standards.

So do they change Draper ...or do they not change?

If nothing is currently happening to something, can that ever imply that the
'something' is in a state if change?

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.

Quantitatively correct ones? No, there're not.

There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.

Sure there is. Neutral kaons exhibit the very same effects as charged
particles. Where the hell have you been?

I certainly haven't been filling my head with SRian propaganda put out by
relativists FOR relativists..

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.

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.

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.

Why?

Try using your own fucking head Draper.

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.




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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 35, 36, 37 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:18 pm | 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: 0.4920s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0980s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]