Mysterious radio signals from space discovered to be a much better test of Einstein's General Relativity theory

December 30, 2015
Mysterious radio signals from space discovered to be a much better test of Einstein's general relativity theory
Limits on the differences of the γ values for three FRB observations. Credit: Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 261101 – Published 23 December 2015. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.261101

A new way to test one of the basic principles underlying Einstein's theory of General Relativity using brief blasts of rare radio signals from space called Fast Radio Bursts is ten times, to one-hundred times better than previous testing methods that used gamma-ray bursts, according to a paper just published in the journal Physical Review Letters. The paper received additional highlighting as an "Editor's Suggestion" due to "its particular importance, innovation, and broad appeal," according to the journal's editors.

The new method is considered to be a significant tribute to Einstein on the 100th anniversary of his first formulation of the Equivalence Principle, which is a key component of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. More broadly, it also is a key component of the concept that the geometry of spacetime is curved by the mass density of individual galaxies, stars, planets, and other objects.

Fast Radio Bursts are super-brief blasts of energy—lasting just a few milliseconds. Until now, only about a dozen Fast Radio Bursts have been detected on Earth. They appear to be caused by mysterious events beyond our Milky Way Galaxy, and possibly even beyond the Local Group of galaxies that includes the Milky Way. The new technique will be important for analyzing the abundance of observations of Fast Radio Bursts that advanced radio-signal observatories, now being planned, are expected to detect.

"With abundant observational information in the future, we can gain a better understanding of the physical nature of Fast Radio Bursts," said Peter Mészáros, Holder of the Eberly Family Chair in Astronomy and Astrophysics and Professor of Physics at Penn State, the senior author of the research paper. Like all other forms of electromagnetic radiation including visible light, Fast Radio Bursts travel through space as waves of photon particles. The number of wave crests arriving from Fast Radio Bursts per second—their "frequency"—is in the same range as that of radio signals. "When more-powerful detectors provide us with more observations," Mészáros said, "we also will be able to use Fast Radio Bursts as a probe of their host galaxies, of the space between galaxies, of the cosmic-web structure of the universe, and as a test of fundamental physics."

The impact of the new method using Fast Radio Bursts is expected to increase significantly as more of the bursts are observed, and if their origin can be established more firmly. "If Fast Radio Bursts are proven to originate outside the Milky Way Galaxy, and if their distances can be measured accurately, they will be a new powerful tool for testing Einstein's Equivalence Principle and for extending the tested energy range down to radio-band frequencies," Mészáros said.

This illustration shows how two photons, one at a high frequency (nu_h) and another at a low frequency (nu_l), travel in curved space-time from their origin in a distant Fast Radio Burst (FRB) source until reaching the Earth. A lower-limit estimate of the gravitational pull that the photons experience along their way is given by the mass in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Credit: Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Einstein's Equivalence Principle requires that any two photons of different frequencies, emitted at the same time from the same source and traveling through the same gravitational fields, should arrive at Earth at exactly the same time. "If Einstein's Equivalence Principle is correct, any time delay that might occur between these two photons should not be due to the gravitational fields they experienced during their travels, but should be due only to other physical effects," Mészáros said. "By measuring how closely in time the two different-frequency photons arrive, we can test how closely they obey Einstein's Equivalence Principle."

More specifically, Mészáros said the test that he and his coauthors developed involves an analysis of how much space curvature the photons experienced due to massive objects along or near their path through space. He said, "Our test of Einstein's Equivalence Principle using Fast Radio Bursts consists of checking by how much does a parameter—the gamma parameter—differ for the two photons with different frequencies."

Mészáros said his research team's analysis of the less-than-a-dozen recently detected Fast Radio Bursts "supersedes by one to two orders of magnitude the previous best limits on the accuracy of the Einstein Equivalence Principle," which were based on gamma rays and other energies from a 1987 supernova explosion, supernova 1987A. "Our analysis using radio frequencies shows that the Einstein Equivalence Principle is obeyed to one part in a hundred million," Mészáros said. "This result is a significant tribute to Einstein's theory, on the hundredth anniversary of its first formulation."

In addition to Mészáros, other authors of the paper include Jun-Jie Wei, a graduate student at the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; and two scientists who received their postdoctoral training with Mészáros at Penn State and who now hold academic and research positions in China, He Gao and Xue-Feng Wu, who is the paper's corresponding author.

Explore further: Researchers propose new way to chart the cosmos in 3D

More information: Testing Einstein's Equivalence Principle With Fast Radio Bursts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 261101 – Published 23 December 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.261101

Related Stories

Researchers propose new way to chart the cosmos in 3D

September 18, 2015

If only calculating the distance between Earth and far-off galaxies was as easy as pulling out the old measuring tape. Now UBC researchers are proposing a new way to calculate distances in the cosmos using mysterious bursts ...

Fast radio bursts might come from nearby stars

December 12, 2013

First discovered in 2007, "fast radio bursts" continue to defy explanation. These cosmic chirps last for only a thousandth of a second. The characteristics of the radio pulses suggested that they came from galaxies billions ...

Radio-burst discovery deepens astrophysics mystery

July 10, 2014

The discovery of a split-second burst of radio waves by scientists using the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico provides important new evidence of mysterious pulses that appear to come from deep in outer space.

Recommended for you

Electron highway inside crystal

December 8, 2016

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

135 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (29) Dec 30, 2015
In other words, what the authors are saying is that they intend to try to use these signals to validate the textbook theory regardless of what they actually turn out to be -- and even if the signals might -- more truthfully -- raise questions about the textbook theory.

It's called building your CV.

Got it.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (30) Dec 30, 2015
"Our analysis using radio frequencies shows that the Einstein Equivalence Principle is obeyed to one part in a hundred million," Mészáros said. "This result is a significant tribute to Einstein's theory, on the hundredth anniversary of its first formulation."

Either Hannes can't read or he is in denial.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (29) Dec 30, 2015
In other words, what the authors are saying is that they intend to try to use these signals to validate the textbook theory regardless of what they actually turn out to be

Did you even read the article? They already did the analysis. They put Einstein to the test. It's important to keep testing theories. Any little deviation opens the door to new physics..

Got it.

Nope you didn't. As usual.
indio007
2.5 / 5 (24) Dec 30, 2015
In other words, what the authors are saying is that they intend to try to use these signals to validate the textbook theory regardless of what they actually turn out to be -- and even if the signals might -- more truthfully -- raise questions about the textbook theory.

It's called building your CV.

Got it.


I call it confirming a priori assumptions via cherry picking.
Even Feynman got sucked into the theory then observation paradigm.

my2cts
3.5 / 5 (26) Dec 30, 2015
I call it confirming a priori assumptions via cherry picking.

I call it making a prediction based on a new theory and then be confirmed 100 years later. No small feat. It takes intelligence and guts.
https://en.wikipe...lligence
https://en.wiktio...iki/guts

Even Feynman got sucked into the theory then observation paradigm.

It's called theoretical physics.
https://en.wikipe..._physics
my2cts
3 / 5 (20) Dec 30, 2015
indio007
You are a total absolute infinite ignoramus on anything remotely related to whatever science, take your pick. What gives you the courage to post on theoretical physics?
axemaster
5 / 5 (19) Dec 30, 2015
Like all other forms of electromagnetic radiation including visible light, Fast Radio Bursts travel through space as waves of photon particles.

No. They travel as waves, and interact as particles.
Ultron
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2015
Here is the original article:
http://arxiv.org/...70v1.pdf

After reading it I dare to say its pure propaganda full of assumptions, estimates and adjustments which leads (surprise, surprise) to the conclusion confirming the mainstream textbook opinion. Its completely useless and the boasting about one part in a hundred million accuracy level is completely illusionary due to speculative assumptions and adjustments.

Citing only short part of the article:
....assuming that the observed time delay is caused mainly by the gravitational potential of the
Milky Way and adopting the inferred redshift either based on DM measurement.....
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 30, 2015
indio007 claims
I call it confirming a priori assumptions via cherry picking.
Even Feynman got sucked into the theory then observation paradigm
In previous interactions on relativity you betray, what seems to be centrally emotional dogmatic position its wrong. There is propaganda around the net to this effect are you pliable ?

Its why formal Physics education is essential & Experimental Methods & Probability & Statistics & even Psychology - so you candle your implacable issues of confirmational bias & discriminate manipulative language !

You failed in our last 'dialectic' to put forward any basic position as to why you imagine GPS operations false, well other than tangential implication there's a grand conspiracy ?

Pray tell just why you imagine these are wrong:-
1 GPS
2 https://en.wikipe...periment
3 http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm
(G.Relativity proven &@ 33cm)

Got maths please ?
baudrunner
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2015
Nothing mysterious about those radio and gamma signals. The reason that a glass marble falls to Earth at the same rate as a lead marble is because the inertia of the more massive object cancels any greater effect that gravity might have on it just because it is heavier. By the same token, a higher frequency initiates from a more energetic source, and as Einstein said, mass equals energy, so again, inertia of the greater energy prevents those photonic weaves from arriving earlier. Simple physics.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2015
After reading it I dare to say its pure propaganda ... confirming the mainstream textbook opinion. Its completely useless ... completely illusionary ...
If you could learn to keep your mouth closed, you could keep the flies from getting in. Stop drooling on the thread.
djusko
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
It's over my head but I want to keep watching. Don
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015

I see, they've developed a more accurate way to measure for discrepancies in arrival times of radio freq. vs light...
And now they just need a few sessions of radio bursts to test it...?
From reading the article, I got the impression they haven't, yet...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
It's over my head but I want to keep watching. Don

No worries, Don. It's way over most of our heads.
But, we don't let that deter us from trying to keep up...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015
Nothing mysterious about those radio and gamma signals. The reason that a glass marble falls to Earth at the same rate as a lead marble is because the inertia of the more massive object cancels any greater effect that gravity might have on it just because it is heavier. By the same token, a higher frequency initiates from a more energetic source, and as Einstein said, mass equals energy, so again, inertia of the greater energy prevents those photonic weaves from arriving earlier. Simple physics.

Simpler physics -
Atmospheric friction will more than likely cause evaporation of the lead one (oh, great ...) and cause the glass one to crack and probably fracture into smaller pieces...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
From reading the article, I got the impression they haven't, yet.

From the linked abstract at the bottom:
we prove that fast radio bursts (FRBs) of cosmological origin can be used to constrain the EEP with high accuracy. Taking FRB 110220 and two possible FRB/gamma-ray burst (GRB) association systems (FRB/GRB 101011A and FRB/GRB 100704A) as examples, we obtain a strict upper limit on the differences of the parametrized post-Newtonian parameter γ values as low as


The image is also a good clue that they already have measurements.
my2cts
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2015
Nothing mysterious about those radio and gamma signals. The reason that a glass marble falls to Earth at the same rate as a lead marble is because the inertia of the more massive object cancels any greater effect that gravity might have on it just because it is heavier. By the same token, a higher frequency initiates from a more energetic source, and as Einstein said, mass equals energy, so again, inertia of the greater energy prevents those photonic weaves from arriving earlier. Simple physics.

So the equivalence principle is "simple physics" ?
That is as stupid as believing that playing the piano is easy after watching a virtuoso.
Playing golf is also easy, just put the ball in the hole in one stroke.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
Here is the original article:
http://arxiv.org/...70v1.pdf

After reading it I dare to say its pure propaganda full of assumptions, estimates and adjustments which leads (surprise, surprise) to the conclusion confirming the mainstream textbook opinion. Its completely useless and the boasting about one part in a hundred million accuracy level is completely illusionary due to speculative assumptions and adjustments.

Citing only short part of the article:
....assuming that the observed time delay is caused mainly by the gravitational potential of the
Milky Way and adopting the inferred redshift either based on DM measurement.....

Another idiotic post from Ultron, who believes he knows everything much better than "mainstream" dorks. He believes that he is an unrecognised genius who does not even have to get out of bed to outshine physics as a whole. Without studying.
The basis of his position is the Dunning Kruger effect.
Ultron
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2015
Citing only short part of the article:
....assuming that the observed time delay is caused mainly by the gravitational potential of the
Milky Way and adopting the inferred redshift either based on DM measurement.....

Another idiotic post from Ultron, who believes he knows everything much better than "mainstream" dorks. He believes that he is an unrecognised genius who does not even have to get out of bed to outshine physics as a whole. Without studying.
The basis of his position is the Dunning Kruger effect.

If you have no real arguments and resort to personal attacks, it makes you look like idiot.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
No, I didn't even read the article, no need. The slit experiment is misinterpreted. A particle emits waves wither it enters the slit or not. A particle responds to a wave. The initial wavelength of a wavelet travels past you in a certain amount of time. Therefore the speed of the wave-front is wave-length emitted divided by the time to pass, or 1/frequency_observed. So why read the stupid article? Yea, the energy increases as the frequency increases, and yea, the frequency increase as the relative speed of wave-front increases. No body has to reshape space and time. Dr. E was an idiot as well as ...
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 31, 2015
Citing only short part of the article:
....assuming that the observed time delay is caused mainly by the gravitational potential of the
Milky Way and adopting the inferred redshift either based on DM measurement.....

Another idiotic post from Ultron, who believes he knows everything much better than "mainstream" dorks. He believes that he is an unrecognised genius who does not even have to get out of bed to outshine physics as a whole. Without studying.
The basis of his position is the Dunning Kruger effect.


If you have no real arguments and resort to personal attacks, it makes you look like idiot.

You attacked the paper with "no real arguments", so why don't you also start the physical discussion?
indio007
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
indio007
You are a total absolute infinite ignoramus on anything remotely related to whatever science, take your pick. What gives you the courage to post on theoretical physics?

Sorry fount of all knowledge. Are you the secret gatekeeper?
Data then theory not the other way around. That is the scientific method.
You cite wikipedia an awful lot BTW.
Here's a cite for you.
https://en.wikipe...ion_bias
indio007
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
indio007 claims
I call it confirming a priori assumptions via cherry picking.
Even Feynman got sucked into the theory then observation paradigm
In previous interactions on relativity you betray, what seems to be centrally emotional dogmatic position its wrong. There is propaganda around the net to this effect are you pliable ?

Its why formal Physics education is essential & Experimental Methods & Probability & Statistics & even Psychology - so you candle your implacable issues of confirmational bias & discriminate manipulative language !

You failed in our last 'dialectic' to put forward any basic position as to why you imagine GPS operations false, well other than tangential implication there's a grand conspiracy ?

Got maths please ?

You are aware the GPS relies on a preferred inertial frame right? You aware that there is no doppler effect i GPS right? Don't need math just logic. If you want math chew on this. You are aware that GR is non linear right?
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
If you have no real arguments and resort to personal attacks, it makes you look like idiot.
Ah, so you read your own post? Look how idiotic it is having no real arguments about "assumptions, estimates and adjustments," and having attacks claiming proper scientific theory is "propaganda" and "opinion". That's some serious maggot-brained idiocy.

But thanks for posting the link to the paper.

And the word is "illusory", not 'illusionary'.
swordsman
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
This article illustrates the ignorance of astrophysicists in understanding the universe. Most everything presented requires importance assumptions. Of course, adding the name "Einstein" doesn't hurt at all, even if it has nothing to do with the material. "The edge of the universe...."? If there was a "Big Bang", wouldn't material be thrown in all directions?
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
Gravity is due to the number of charges, increase the count, increase the force. M/(Me+Mp) gives best guess of the number of particle pairs. Therefore everything falls at the same speed. Space and time do not change. In fact, spend more time thinking for oneself and see there is only the "+" and "-" charge. So start over with these and redefine our universal constants, ... the superimposed force, push and pull, yields a pull only because the charges always comply. So yes, we have both forces at play ... no need for a new physics but a need for self correction. I would keep our engineering but redefine this for theoretical calculations, juz say'n, the centers are nearly at the same point, note the point, "nearly" i.e. weak force
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
So if we understand reality, we should be able to define all combinations and interactions of just these two particles. This way we understand what we see and don't use what we see to define what popped into someone's head!
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
Neutrinos are more likely due to a charge breaking away from a nucleus, rotation or oscillation gives the radiation. You may even define the radius of any circular motion or oscillation from the frequency. All radiation is due to charge motion or your motion relative to the charge. You know, a static field about the charge is different at different points, either change the field direction, Poynting vector, or change intensity, change in distance. There is no magic! So all radiation that is not a particle is defined from a particle. There is no duality! Dr. E's first dissertation was on corpuscular theory, not a very good paper. I would have flunked him.

But I don't have a PhD, just a hobby.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
Weak and strong force is only a proximity thing or the difference of two opposite forces, simple. No for the Standard Model, no Higgs! etc.
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
The edge of the universe is unknowable, I guess. I conjecture an infinite universe therefore and attraction toward this edge upon every particle pair and when greater than the near field it would dominate, i.e. force of attraction from an infinite source; near field here defined as field of neighboring galaxys. Motion would be defined by initial motion. Initial motion would be away from the near field if the galaxy is to form independently. Therefore and expanding universe, everywhere. But the near field is also constantly changing therefore, varying velocity ... thinking in terms of a hypersphere. But this is only my mental masturbation.
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
You may think of the universe as a unit hypersphere, then there may exist a universe of multiple hyperspheres. The charged particle may be a hypersphere. But the + and - is unreconciled, then not a sound theory, although the singularity of the charge is sound but why equal numbers of each? Maybe a multiple singularity, positive and negative. However, this math eludes me. I fancy thinking that what we see outwardly is also what we see inwardly; hence, + and -. Thus, mental masturbation, don't want to be as Einstein. So an infinite multiple singularity. A solution to an unknown mathematical problem. The solution exist but not the problem clearly defined since it's infinite.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
You may think of the universe as a unit hypersphere, then there may exist a universe of multiple hyperspheres. The charged particle may be a hypersphere. But the + and - is unreconciled, then not a sound theory, although the singularity of the charge is sound but why equal numbers of each? Maybe a multiple singularity, positive and negative. However, this math eludes me. I fancy thinking that what we see outwardly is also what we see inwardly; hence, + and -. Thus, mental masturbation, don't want to be as Einstein. So an infinite multiple singularity.


@ Hyper-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing pretty good, thanks for asking.

Are you by any chance related to Returnering-Skippy? He is kind of hyper too when it comes to writing a lot of postums to him self while he is pondering life. Just curious me.
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
You may think of the universe as a unit hypersphere, then there may exist a universe of multiple hyperspheres. The charged particle may be a hypersphere. But the + and - is unreconciled, then not a sound theory, although the singularity of the charge is sound but why equal numbers of each? Maybe a multiple singularity, positive and negative. However, this math eludes me. I fancy thinking that what we see outwardly is also what we see inwardly; hence, + and -. Thus, mental masturbation, don't want to be as Einstein. So an infinite multiple singularity. A solution to an unknown mathematical problem. The solution exist but not the problem clearly defined since it's infinite.


Note: Math is only an isomorphism, not reality.
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
You may think of the universe as a unit hypersphere, then there may exist a universe of multiple hyperspheres. The charged particle may be a hypersphere. But the + and - is unreconciled, then not a sound theory, although the singularity of the charge is sound but why equal numbers of each? Maybe a multiple singularity, positive and negative. However, this math eludes me. I fancy thinking that what we see outwardly is also what we see inwardly; hence, + and -. Thus, mental masturbation, don't want to be as Einstein. So an infinite multiple singularity.


@ Hyper-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing pretty good, thanks for asking.

Are you by any chance related to Returnering-Skippy? He is kind of hyper too when it comes to writing a lot of postums to him self while he is pondering life. Just curious me.


yea, I do write too much, just my thought I think is profound. But so is this paper and more so Dr. E. But no relation
Hyperfuzzy
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2015
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015
The image is also a good clue that they already have measurements.

And now need more FRBs to refine their findings...
baudrunner
3 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2015
@my2cts said
So the equivalence principle is "simple physics" ?
yah, Ocham's razor, you dimwit. You got a problem with that? I think you should stay off this site because these guys miss you https://www.faceb...ppetsABC
indio007
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2015
It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.
-Oliver Heaviside

my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2015
@my2cts said
So the equivalence principle is "simple physics" ?
yah, Ocham's razor, you dimwit. You got a problem with that? I think you should stay off this site because these guys miss you https://www.faceb...ppetsABC

No physicist considers the EEP as simple physics. This is hindsight 20-20 vision, a common trap for ignoramusses like you. Also there is no connection with Occam's razor. You should check your spelling before trying to impress.
What you think is not relevant. What you say and can back up is. Nothing sofar in your case.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2015

Got maths please ?

You are aware the GPS relies on a preferred inertial frame right? You aware that there is no doppler effect i GPS right? Don't need math just logic. If you want math chew on this. You are aware that GR is non linear right?

You are just big empty words and no math.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
indio007
You are a total absolute infinite ignoramus on anything remotely related to whatever science, take your pick. What gives you the courage to post on theoretical physics?

Sorry fount of all knowledge. Are you the secret gatekeeper?
Data then theory not the other way around. That is the scientific method.
You cite wikipedia an awful lot BTW.
Here's a cite for you.
https://en.wikipe...ion_bias

If you think that making a prediction and then checking it is confirmation bias you are wrong. That does not surprise me. You have not been right yet. "Data then theory" is only half of physics, the other half being "theory then data".
Here's a good wikipedia article for you. Read it before you lecture people on what you believe is the scientific method. You will look less foolish.
https://en.wikipe...pothesis
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
"Data then theory" is only half of physics, the other half being "theory then data".


Gonna trump ya both.
Physics (and the science of it) is -
Data, theory, data, another theory, data, theory... (ad infinitum)

(Liberally interspersed with the most widely used inflective in history;)
Hunh?!? Translation - "What the -?"
Hunh... Translation - "That's interesting... I wonder how..."
Hunnhhh. Translation - "Ok. NOW I get it... Hey, everybody! Ya gotta see this..."
Repeat.

indio007
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015

You are just big empty words and no math.


ZOMG no maths! There was math dolt. GR is non-linear. The principal of super position does not apply. If you have 2 material bodies you can't simply add their individual gravitational fields and calculate the mutual attraction. This is basic math you should have learned in 9th grade.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015
If you have 2 material bodies you can't simply add their individual gravitational fields and calculate the mutual attraction.

It ain't quite that simple, but - why not?
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." A. Einstein
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2015

@ Hyper-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing pretty good, thanks for asking.

Are you by any chance related to Returnering-Skippy? He is kind of hyper too when it comes to writing a lot of postums to him self while he is pondering life. Just curious me.

He certainly was on a "deep thoughts" roll, there, wasn't he...
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
indio007 claims
You are aware the GPS relies on a preferred inertial frame (IRF) right?
Wrong, badly so, which one, prove it please ?

You write as if you don't understand an IRF OR mis-apply & confuse a hypothetical "preferred" IRF from unproven aether theory, so which definition you rely upon ?
As seems Very different to accepted basis for dialectic:-
https://en.wikipe...eference

indio007 claims
You aware that there is no doppler effect i GPS right?
Beg pardon ?
If talking *inside* satellite or comms ?
If former then confirms GR/SR affects time since NO doppler dependence & if latter then you're Wrong as doppler always occur during satellite comms, again please offer definition you rely upon or refresh understanding:-
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

indio007 claims
Don't need math just logic
Wrong, IRF/doppler math based - you claim Wrong, what math then to fit your claim ?

Physics please NOT propaganda !
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
Continued @indio007,

who claims
If you want math chew on this. You are aware that GR is non linear right?
Beg pardon, so what ?
You seem implying oddball negative jibe GR being non-linear as if intrinsically wrong, where the hell did you get that idle prejudice ?
Linear vs non-linear is high school stuff, are you pliable & hypnotized by messy vocal badly worded propaganda ?

Please get to grips with maths, physics & the experimental conjunction of *both* (proven)
Accepted definition of linear equations & nonlinear systems all acceleration equations must be non-linear, learn;
https://en.wikipe...equation
https://en.wikipe...r_system

Get to grips;
Special Relativity uses Lorentz has a c^2 term
General Relativity, has a c^4 term
Both non-linear, as are so many physics/maths - why relevant ?

Eg Rectilinear acceleration ie drag racing, etc All non-linear - so what ffs ?

Your prior 'physics' reading has you seriously misled !
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
Continued @indio007,

claiming General Relativity is somehow wrong & also claims you don't need math (to offer an alternative) just "logic", misses the point that logic & math are Very heavily intertwined

In order to predict real world effects you need math, ie predicting clock speed (GPS) & energy differences in moving/accelerating objects you need Special Relativity which works just fine, from; comparatively slow objects ie race cars, to planes to rockets to satellites to particles in colliders (LHC)

Claiming SR is wrong & you don't need math just "logic", pray tell why the current math works Fine & if the equations really wrong but give correct results then the logic can't be wrong OR you have *new* math with different equations which gives the same (correct) results, where is that math please ?

Same issue applies on General Relativity (GR) & easily measured, so if wrong then why do atomic clocks show it Works even at small 33cm height difference eg NIST link ?
AGreatWhopper
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2016
Hyperfuzzy1 / 5 (3) 17 hours ago
No, I didn't even read the article. No need.


We strongly encourage you to take the same attitude towards sex!

This place is incredible. You read something like HannesAlfven's post and you think that you've seen the most stupid troll in history. Then comes indio. Then Hyperfuzzy. It really makes you wonder if there's a limit to what ignorance and mental illness can do together. Apparently not.
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2016
No physicist considers the EEP as simple physics.
Yes, they do. You appear unsatisfied with the notion of comprehension and understanding, as if they threaten your status among the ignorant.

This is hindsight 20-20 vision, a common trap for ignoramusses like you.
Google says "Did you mean: ignoramuses "

Also there is no connection with Occam's razor. You should check your spelling before trying to impress.
..nah, I write on the fly, and by the way the simplicity and ready understandability of the equivalence principle practically begs for a plug for Ocham's razor (I use Bic).. and it's how he spelt it, he's a close personal friend of mine.
What you think is not relevant. What you say and can back up is. Nothing sofar in your case.
Mind your impertinence. The world heeds what I say, and as for your two cents, they are never worth anything around here, or anywhere else. We don't even have any stupid pennies anymore, where I live.
my2cts
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2016
No physicist considers the EEP as simple physics.
Yes, they do.
Who does?

This is hindsight 20-20 vision, a common trap for ignoramusses like you.
Google says "Did you mean: ignoramuses "

I knew latin before google existed.

Mind your impertinence. The world heeds what I say, and as for your two cents, they are never worth anything around here,

Where is that Shrek ?
or anywhere else.

Phys Journals, EPO and my patent dept think otherwise.
We don't even have any stupid pennies anymore, where I live.

Your talk about nicks is irrelevant. Who cares where you live?
my2cts
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2016
@br
You seem to be confusing two expressions, "my two cents" and "two pennies for your thoughts". Cents are still used in many places. Read https://en.wikipe...urrency) to keep up with the world.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2016
This place is incredible. You read something like HannesAlfven's post and you think that you've seen the most stupid troll in history. Then comes indio. Then Hyperfuzzy. It really makes you wonder if there's a limit to what ignorance and mental illness can do together. Apparently not.

AGW-
We live in a Universe of Infinite possibility...:-)
viko_mx
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2016
I do not get answer yet where the formulas of GR operate with real physical objects with certain physical properties and limitations, such as the vacuum of space which fills the 3d geometric space, instead with some abstract infinitely elastic geometric space such without properties and limitations? I do not expect get an answer by the supporters of evolution.
viko_mx
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2016
"We live in a Universe of Infinite possibility...:-)"

How can you prove through scientific methods such groundless statement? This claim means that the universe is not controlled by originally established during its creation event physical laws, constants and fundamental forces.
indio007
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2016
my2cts

Are you cracking up because of you slain god? There isn't anything on earth that needs or even uses GR or SR as a precursor to engineer. Everything we do is in the "weak limit" of GR and Newtonian physica work just fine.

Your really not comprehending the Non-linear issue or are in denial.
There are no known EXACT solutions for a 2 body GR problem i.e. the gravitational force between 2 bodies. Each bodies gravitational field's strength is non-linear. So you can't take each individual bodies field and add them together and get a sum. The ironic thing is you can't compute with the field of a single body without another body for it to be attracted to.

Stephen Crothers says it better than me.
https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2016

Stephen Crothers says it better than me.
https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA

LMFAO!

jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2016
I do not get answer yet where the formulas of GR operate with real physical objects with certain physical properties and limitations

You have been answered many many times. You dismiss any evidence outright because it doesn't fit with what believe
I do not expect get an answer by the supporters of evolution.

You actually have(your foolish claims are so simple you don't even need an expert) but honestly nor should you. General relativity does not and is not trying to prove evolution and vice versa as they are very different fields. Mass conspiracy theories like yours can try to insist it but it won't make them real.
viko_mx
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
@jsdarkdestruction

Why you lie? Because you confess the ideology of chaos and corruption due to non love? How long with these favorite declarations? When will start presenting evidence and scientific arguments?

Where is your explanation and evidence that the GR theory works with real physical objects instead with abstract 3d geometric space without physical properties and limitations? Why you deny the obvious?

The Big bang theory for the cosmic evolution is based on GR theory. The theory for the biological evolution is based on theory for the cosmic evolution which must provide to it billion years needed to ideologist of evolution in the hope that if something can not happen for short period of time it will happen in the log term which demonstrate only wishful thinking and ignorance about physical laws that support the order in the universe.

viko_mx
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
Furthermore, the true purpose of GR theory is to justify moral relativism in society (lawlessness) in a "scientific" way by presenting it as something that occurs naturally in nature.
Einstein at the end of his career he felt satisfied, because he realized that his theory is a tale without scientific value.

There is no way to be defined order without absolutes. Understand and remember this if you want to be honest at least to yourself as a rational person.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2016
You are insane. I don't know how you have managed to construct such a strongly divorced reality in which to live.
Satellites Viko. Gps. Orbit of mercury.
All the stuff about morals and lawlessness is nonsense. I live an honorable life and am much more moral than your egotistical vain spiteful insecure vengeful hypocritical tyrant God who sends angels to mass murder babies and punishes all of creation with having to experience death because of one woman's mistake.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
"We live in a Universe of Infinite possibility...:-)"

How can you prove through scientific methods such groundless statement? This claim means that the universe is not controlled by originally established during its creation event physical laws, constants and fundamental forces.

Are you kidding? Those "established" laws are what MAKE it possible...
To put it philosophically - you are just another pattern - evolved to discern all the other possible patterns that are here - and will be...
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
indio007 confused who posted what, claims
my2cts
Are you cracking up because of you slain god?There isn't anything on earth that needs or even uses GR or SR as a precursor to engineer. Everything we do is in the "weak limit" of GR and Newtonian physica work just fine
Wrong !
GPS navigation result used "on earth" doh, you Failed to answer my questions & Failed to address atomic clock resolution re the NIST link proving GR - why ?

indio007 claims
Your really not comprehending the Non-linear issue or are in denial
No.
You Failed to address detail ie the Definition - why ?

Non-linear does NOT mean unsolvable, try get to grips with paradigm of static vs *dynamic* re n-body, you're showing huge confusion, as well as confusion as to who posted what or what you remember re the religious nutter viko_mx :-(

Posting link to aether lecture is NOT proof of any GR failure, ie Why does GPS Math work ?

Please read my posts & answer my questions directly ?

Physics !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
viko_mx claims
Furthermore, the true purpose of GR theory is to justify moral relativism in society (lawlessness) in a "scientific" way by presenting it as something that occurs naturally in nature
Prove it ?

viko_mx claims
Einstein at the end of his career he felt satisfied, because he realized that his theory is a tale without scientific value
Prove it ?

And viko_mx, explain why these all work perfectly well with GR corrections:-
1 GPS
2. Orbit of Mercury (planet)
3 Hafele-Keating experiment
4 Melting point of Mercury (element)
5 Color of Gold
6 Radioactive decay latency when traveling at relativistic speeds
7 Operation of NIST atomic clocks at height difference as little as 33cm, see my link below

viko_mx claims
There is no way to be defined order without absolutes
Prove it ?

viko_mx with hypocrisy
Understand and remember this if you want to be honest at least to yourself as a rational person
Repeating unproven claims is insane, go away !
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
Furthermore, the true purpose of GR theory is to justify moral relativism in society (lawlessness) in a "scientific" way by presenting it as something that occurs naturally in nature.
Einstein at the end of his career he felt satisfied, because he realized that his theory is a tale without scientific value.

I really would like to see a psychiatric report on you.
Beginning dementia can explain the confabulation, but demented people usually are no longer interested in science. If you have any documents you want to share let me know.
A complex of intellectual inferiority combined with some antisemitism would also do the job.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
@indio007 & viko_mx (who claimed "I know Physics well" but, obviously doesn't)

Please get a handle GPS re the maths re the 3 correction effects & HOW implemented:-
https://en.wikipe...lativity

Also can both of you comment on WHY this works:-
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm

ie WHAT possible other reason could there be for an atomic clock in a closed vacuum chamber changing its rate when moved as little as 33cm up or down in Earth's gravitational field (GR) *or* how its rate slows measurably when moving at a speed (SR) of as little as 20 miles per hour ?

@indio007,
Watched first 9 mins of the youtube video you linked, there are already odd errors re assumptions of the null state in terms of interpreting the field equations, also his language starts out with a negative confirmational bias, not Scientific at all

For efficiency, please link to his physics paper ?
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
my2cts

Are you cracking up because of you slain god? There isn't anything on earth that needs or even uses GR or SR as a precursor to engineer. Everything we do is in the "weak limit" of GR and Newtonian physica work just fine.

Your really not comprehending the Non-linear issue or are in denial.
There are no known EXACT solutions for a 2 body GR problem i.e. the gravitational force between 2 bodies. Each bodies gravitational field's strength is non-linear. So you can't take each individual bodies field and add them together and get a sum. The ironic thing is you can't compute with the field of a single body without another body for it to be attracted to.

Stephen Crothers says it better than me.
https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA


Decay of muons is an obvious example of SR.
I don't know who would want to quote Crothers, except Steve himself.
Thanks for explaining the concept of nonlinearity over and over again, but I am fully familiar with it.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
"And viko_mx, explain why these all work perfectly well with GR corrections:-
1 GPS
2. Orbit of Mercury (planet)
3 Hafele-Keating experiment
4 Melting point of Mercury (element)
5 Color of Gold
6 Radioactive decay latency when traveling at relativistic speeds
7 Operation of NIST atomic clocks at height difference as little as 33cm, see my link below"

Thеsе are not evidence for GR but against it.

For example GPS systems works perfectly without GR correction.

At fundamental level GR is wrong because do not consider real physical objects. This makes any emotional argument in support of this theory meaningless.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
""Satellites Viko. Gps. Orbit of mercury. "

Be more specific. I do not care for groundless declarations.
I care about scientific explanations based on facts obtained by observations or experiments.

This effects have explanation but this explanations have nothing to do with fictional relativity.

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
viko_mx claims
"And viko_mx, explain why these all work perfectly well with GR corrections:-
1 GPS
2. Orbit of Mercury (planet)
3 Hafele-Keating experiment
4 Melting point of Mercury (element)
5 Color of Gold
6 Radioactive decay latency when traveling at relativistic speeds
7 Operation of NIST atomic clocks at height difference as little as 33cm, see my link below"
Thеsе are not evidence for GR but against it
How ? Please prove it ?

viko_mx claims
For example GPS systems works perfectly without GR correction
How ? read:-
https://en.wikipe...lativity

viko_mx claims
At fundamental level GR is wrong because do not consider real physical objects
Read link at end !

viko_mx says
This makes any emotional argument in support of this theory meaningless
Are you ill - focus only on Evidence ?

Start with NIST link:-
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
viko_mx claims
""Satellites Viko. Gps. Orbit of mercury. "
Be more specific. I do not care for groundless declarations
GPS does NOT work without relativity corrections, read this & tell where u think its wrong ?
https://en.wikipe...lativity

viko_mx claims
I care about scientific explanations based on facts obtained by observations or experiments
Really - you have been given links before but ignored them, so explain HOW this works without relativity ?
https://en.wikipe...periment

viko_mc claims
This effects have explanation but this explanations have nothing to do with fictional relativity
WHAT are these explanations then if without relativity ?

Where is your maths please and WHY do the GPS corrections work perfectly well then ?
https://en.wikipe...rihelion

HOW viko_mx ? show maths of all effects above without relativity ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
@viko_mx
Why are you ignoring Huge amount of Evidence is all over the place in support of General Relativity (GR) so many things just Cannot work without key maths GR describes, how can you claim its wrong Without Evidence ?

Take a look at the Maths re Mercury the planet, it should be Easy for you as you have claimed "I know Physics Well" and that Means you MUST know Maths well, which includes the ability to multiply, divide & take square roots, so point out the clear error which supports your claim Relativity is somehow wrong in this specific link ?
https://en.wikipe...lativity

But, back to the first main question I asked you directly re NIST ?

How can an atomic clock change rate due to altitude change 33cm AND be able to show also slowing at speeds as low as 20 miles per hr - these two things Cannot be shown without Relativity, your explanation please ?
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
""Satellites Viko. Gps. Orbit of mercury. "

Be more specific. I do not care for groundless declarations.
I care about scientific explanations based on facts obtained by observations or experiments.

This effects have explanation but this explanations have nothing to do with fictional relativity.


Clearly you don't know the first thing about GRT. "Orbit of Mercury" immediately rings a bell with anyone who does. You are an ignoramus and a DK case. And a nut.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
Sry link got munted, Mercury (planet) link should be:-
https://en.wikipe...rihelion

However, key question as students of dialectic would be keen to converge is just WHY the NIST atomic clocks & list of other items work perfectly well WITH relativity calculations, so lets start this dive into the rabbit hole by starting with the simplest, easiest & that which can only recently now be demonstrated reliably at slow speeds & small height differences:-
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm

If thats too hard for viko_mx & indio007 then explain why GPS *cannot* work without relativity corrections
https://en.wikipe...lativity

These are real world objects, at observable speeds and very well documented.

So viko_mx & indio007 tell us about the *other* GPS systems, do they ignore or do they rely on the same GR/SR relativity calculations ?
viko_mx
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
@my2cts

Give explanations instead of declarations if you are in condition to do it.

I have not seen in this site a supporter of the theory of evolution to give personal explanations to some scientific question or problem. They are employed mainly in emotional declarations, links and wishes to their opponents, because they have nothing to do with real science and are unable to present scientific arguments which correspond to the physical reality in which we live.
I do not expect from them personal explanations.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
my2cts
Are you cracking up because of you slain god?

Huh ?
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2016
@my2cts

Give explanations instead of declarations if you are in condition to do it.

Viko_mx must be some machine learning code.
The only problem with this explanation is that he does not learn.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2016
@viko_mx
Mer-cu-ry pe-ri-he-li-um ad-van-ce. ni-ne-teen-six-teen.
Schwarz-schild, Dros-te. A-ny text on gra-vi-ty.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
@viko_mx perhaps you have been badly misled as to what General Relativity actually is?
Tell us your interpretation of its Math as obviously as you are focused on emotion you miss maths ?

Maths please viko_mx & in relation to:-
https://en.wikipe...lativity

Tell us viko_mx why you ignore Physics & Maths links I offered to help you ?
Which aren't based on emotion, they are Factual from Evidence ie Physics & Math, start with
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm

In relation to Maths here, please tell us with your knowledge from a claim "I know Physics well" just what precisely you imagine is somehow "wrong" with it:-
https://en.wikipe...lativity

And this video is particularly useful as refresher for you viko_mx for the Physics you claim "I know Physics well", can you see anything wrong re the derivation at *any* place at all ?
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2016
Tell us vi-ko why you don't know the pla-net Mer-cu-ry ?
cantdrive85
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
While listening on my cosmic phone
I caught words from the Olympus blown.
A newcomer was shown around;
That much I could guess, aided by sound.

"There's Archimedes with his lever
Still busy on problems as ever.
Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable."

Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
And turned your great science upside down.
Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
Puts on your high teaching all the blame.

Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable."
"I am much too ignorant, my son,
For grasping schemes so finely spun.

My followers are of stronger mind
And I am content to stay behind.

Nikola Tesla
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
cantdrive85 popped up with
Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
And turned your great science upside down.
Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
Puts on your high teaching all the blame
Tell us how cantdrive85, currents spread so thinly across galaxies where they locally sum can possibly have sufficient force to move planets around in their orbits ?

Especially so as electromagnetics sum re charge opposition but, gravity has no (yet) known opposition, so how can it be there could be *any* sufficient integrated force from electromagnetics which is *any* way comparable to gravity on a solar system wide, galaxy wide or group cluster wide level ?

What cantdrive85, can you prove is wrong with Einstein's correction to Newtonian gravitation at anything comparable to solar system scales ?

Maths would be pertinent as, so far, all I get from the eu/aether mob are idle claims with presumptuous tangential logic but, nothing ever definitive :-(

Why is that ?
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
Tesla had his merits, but understanding relativity was among these. This last quality he passed on to his followers.

http://www.apreda...ein.html
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
While listening on my cosmic phone
...

My interpretation of this is that you are as wrong as Tesla was, which is very very wrong.
If you want to honour Tesla, remind us of his inventions.
If you want to dishonour him, remind us of this poem.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
Correction:
Tesla had his merits, but understanding relativity was not among these. This last quality he passed on to his followers.
cantdrive85
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2016
Einstein had no merits, whatsoever.

Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
http://www.amazon...71962987

"The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on the subject. I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of General Relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers." -- Harry Bateman

"All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him." -- Charles Nordmann

"[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik. . . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." -- Max Born
cantdrive85
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2016
"In point of fact, therefore, Poincare was not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle. All this happened before Einstein's paper appeared." -- G. H. Keswani

"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. . . . Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. . . . Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?" -- James Mackaye

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

Charlatan thief, devoid of genius.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2016
@canti

The source of your quotes is a book by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Jew hating asshole. He does have admirers, like David Duke and other white supremacists and apparently you.

You read some reviews on Amazon and inferred because it is highly critical of Einstein that somehow negates GR and SR. It does no such thing. The allegations are of plagiarism, not that GR and SR are wrong, if anything it points to other scientists reaching the same conclusions as Einstein.

You can read more about Bejerknes.

https://www.googl...;start=0
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

@canti

That's something Einstein never said.

" There is no substantive evidence that Einstein ever made a remark of this type. It is not listed in the comprehensive collection "The Ultimate Quotable Einstein" from Princeton University Press."
http://quoteinves...reative/
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016


"All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him." -- Charles Nordmann

I have to take this quote with a grain of salt. No context and I'm not going to pay a 100 bucks
hoping to find a citation. It's a puzzling statement considering Nordmann was a great admirer of Einstein and a popularizer of his theories.
21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Summer-2011/Einstein_Paris.pdf

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
"When a large number of "aethereal fields" are superposed their singular curves indicate the structure of an "aether" which is capable of supporting a certain type of electromagnetic field."
Harry Bateman

https://en.wikipe..._Bateman

'nuff said.

cantdrive85
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
Quite frankly, I'm not familiar with the author. The quotes/statements are from his contemporaries, the most damning to his reputation were the words he penned himself. Go do my laundry, feed me, and what of the kids? To hell with them...

http://www.nytime...p;src=pm

Top notch guy.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016

"[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik. . . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." -- Max Born

Another quote without context and surprising since Born and Einstein became lifelong friends after meeting in Berlin during WW1. Surprising too that it was included considering Born was a Jew.
https://en.wikipe...Max_Born
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2016
G. H. Keswani was not a contemporary. He wrote a series of articles critical of Einstein beginning in 1966, that in turn received criticism.

"Dingle said, among other things, ".. the 'principle of relativity' had various meanings, and the theories associated with it were quite distinct; they were not different forms of the same theory. Each of the three protagonists.... was very well aware of the others .... but each preferred his own views"

"Karl Popper says "Though Einstein appears to have known Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis prior to 1905, there is no theory like Einstein's in this great book."

"Dingle commented the year after on the history of crediting: "Until the first World War, Lorentz's and Einstein's theories were regarded as different forms of the same idea, but Lorentz, having priority and being a more established figure speaking a more familiar language, was credited with it."
https://en.wikipe...81965.29
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
""Satellites Viko. Gps. Orbit of mercury. "

Be more specific. I do not care for groundless declarations.
I care about scientific explanations based on facts obtained by observations or experiments.

This effects have explanation but this explanations have nothing to do with fictional relativity.

Viko will not accept these as evidence, merely because he does not WANT to... It might put a dent in his oft stated illusion...
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
cantdrive85 Fails, prejudice attacking the Man
Quite frankly, I'm not familiar with the author. The quotes/statements are from his contemporaries, the most damning to his reputation were the words he penned himself. Go do my laundry, feed me, and what of the kids? To hell with them...
http://www.nytime...p;src=pm
You show ignorance of family dynamics & nil context, you don't know if any of those letters were offered in sarcasm, jest, pedantic melancholia or moods & devoid of wifely retorts !

Attacking the person is a LOW thing to do, Uncle Ira does & same antigoracle Without any actual Physics OR even general Science, they're incompetent at articulation & immensely uneducated seeking only to influence by emotional claim, ie ugly snipers :-(

Focus on the work cantdrive85 ie What specifically you imagine is wrong with Relativity ?

Worth refreshers ie watch Stanford lectures please
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016

Charlatan thief, devoid of genius.

You made your point on very superficial arguments, such as a news paper article. What you need is a serious historical study.
Even it you were right, which you are not, then you still have to show that Einstein's work on the Brownian motion and on the photoelectric effect are also plagiarism and fraud. For these works he received the Nobel prize, not for relativity.
See https://en.wikipe..._dispute for a more structured discussion of the subject.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2016
Interesting, this feud against Einstein's person. viko_mx als expresses this sort of opinion.
It feels like some sort of anti-Einstein movement. I wonder what the motivation could be.
These people are intellectually incapable of actually making a point against relativity, so they turn to the person who symbolises it.
Probably Einstein's success and intellectual superiority conflict with their narcissistic inclinations.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2016
Quite frankly, I'm not familiar with the author. The quotes/statements are from his contemporaries, the most damning to his reputation were the words he penned himself. Go do my laundry, feed me, and what of the kids? To hell with them...

http://www.nytime...p;src=pm

Top notch guy.

Just read the article which does not at all support your conclusions about fraud etc.
You are bashing a dead man, because even from the grave he is intellectually superior to you.
Get treated for your narcissism, it is a dangerous affliction.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
FWIW: To those who have been unfortunate to come across arbitrary youtube videos which have propaganda tone & make unsupportable claims, I strongly suggest getting a handle first on prevailing theory/evidence paradigm re Relativity through a quality university lecture series, there are 4 good Standford lectures with first here, subsequent 3 lectures as thumbnail links on right hand side of page
https://www.youtu...f0bB38h0

Following that I'd favour a key understanding of just How the Einstein field equations are derived initially as its key to later on, if keen, to do direct Math as to just Why GPS & the other GR effects can be calculated reliably
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8

Then indio007 might discover just Why the claim of Stephen Crothers re making one half of the Einstein equation equal to zero is so very Wrong re interpretation & with hugely dis-ingenuous language too attacking the person, rather than being smart re Science !
indio007
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016


Then indio007 might discover just Why the claim of Stephen Crothers re making one half of the Einstein equation equal to zero is so very Wrong re interpretation & with hugely dis-ingenuous language too attacking the person, rather than being smart re Science !


Be specific please.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 03, 2016
@indio007,
Isn't it sensible/mature to manage correct order of questions & answers ?

ie. Asked you specific questions you refused to answer. When you do, you might observe where you have been misled by low IQ propagandists like Crothers (and maybe others) & it should be obvious to intelligent people that when they begin dissertation with attacks on the person & follow up with manipulative language - their method is fundamentally flawed.

One key clue is Crothers presents version of the equation without references & not in complete form then attacks with facile interpretation...

So please, realise this is in some respects a simple issue, those not fortunate for whatever reason to have learned by discipline eg at uni then pliable by manipulation of those pushing their agenda ignoring evidence versus those that studied & observe full consistency of the evidence in conjunction with underlying maths

My Q's first is ideal *or* learn from lectures linked ?

Cheers
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
@indio
You checked out those lectures in 12 minutes? Chapeau !
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
cantdrive85 Fails, prejudice attacking the Man


When you do, you might observe where you have been misled by low IQ propagandists like Crothers

Alrighty then....
it should be obvious to intelligent people that when they begin dissertation with attacks on the person & follow up with manipulative language - their method is fundamentally flawed.

Except of course when you do it.

You show ignorance of family dynamics & nil context, you don't know if any of those letters were offered in sarcasm, jest, pedantic melancholia or moods & devoid of wifely retorts !

Family dynamics? Oh, you mean the type that would lead a wife to nervous breakdown? Silly me.
''an unfriendly, humorless creature.''... ''I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire. I have my own bedroom and avoid being alone with her.''
Nice family dynamics! Let's examine the family dynamics further;
"he began an affair with his cousin, Elsa"
Incest, there is a "family dynamic"!

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
cantdrive85 fails to comprehend
Except of course when you do it
Wrong !

I've never started out on a public audience attacking any identified historical figure.

What you confuse cantdrive85, is clear Evidence there are people on threads here on phys.org who ask presumptuous questions with inherent snide attacks, they deserve all they get from me & others because they assume they know more than those formally trained, have a political agenda or troll to obfuscate the scientific process or muddy the waters re Science communication, you are falling into that category as its becoming apparent you are demonstrating great difficulty delineating claim from evidence :-(

If you think I am wrong then prove it please, show where I attack anyone the same way that Crothers does, can you do that ?

Its clear I only lay into dills/d..ks when there is substantive prior evidence of their consistent failures in; method, logic, maths, physics AND as trolls they refuse to learn !
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
my2cts asked a great question
@indio
You checked out those lectures in 12 minutes? Chapeau !
There seems to be many idle propagandists who have great difficulty understanding sound basis for relativity & indeed the square law re Gravitation & how its straightforward to then can derive the Field Equations with ample Evidence

First Susskind Stanford lecture goes into this, doesnt start with attacks & gets straight to core paradigms & fairly simple maths but, does get little more complex re Gauss, without which Einstein could not have solved his equations !

Gauss is central to principles re Gravitation fields & we know well equation was thought through by Newton & experimentally confirmed before Einstein. Good issue re these lectures is they're structured in such a way as to deal with the straightforward Maths & extrapolations re Physics for those not uni trained

There's NO Crother's manipulative talk, cantdrive85 might learn heaps, unless he's 'past it'...
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
Wrong !

I've never started out on a public audience attacking any identified historical figure.


you might observe where you have been misled by low IQ propagandists like Crothers


If you think I am wrong then prove it please


You just did, thanks.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
There is no need to refer to Crothers to show GRT incorrect, experiment does that just fine.

http://www.nature...-1.18255

"No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong." Einstein

There it is, along with his challenge to prove a negative.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
*grin* cantdrive85 being facile claims
If you think I am wrong then prove it please

You just did, thanks
No. Besides you are not a historical figure and you are not identified, you are a nickname, nothing more

In any case you proved overwhelmingly you are a troll & also refuse to learn, there is prior history as Evidenced on this forum you refuse to address regions of space observed where the orbital motion of close proximity stars infer a gravitational body has mass sufficient to form a black hole

You attempted to throw in division by zero as vain attempt to prove non validity of the BH region yet refuse to consider the BH region need not require division by zero it just needs sufficient mass

I've been down this rabbit hole with you before, you Fail to address Newton's gravitation equation re sufficient mass for acceleration to reach speed 'c'. ie Asked you specifically to address a limit but, Failed.

You fail in so many claims confusing Evidence
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
cantdrive85 claims
There is no need to refer to Crothers to show GRT incorrect, experiment does that just fine.
http://www.nature...-1.18255
"No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong." Einstein..
Wrong again & not even relevant - different issue !
This has nothing to do with GR at all.

Besides GR is confirmed Still & many times, your objection with a quantum issue re entangled properties has NIL mathematical or philosophical umbrella over Gravitation Fields & its effect re Field Equations re Forces on particles or even time dilation ie Lorentz

Why do you bother cantdrive85, I've asked you many questions to support any alternative but, you fail to address them with *any* math, with any alternative which fits with current empiricism, ie.
1. GPS
2. Hafele-Keating experiment
3. Mercury orbit
4. Mercury metal melting point
5. NIST atomic clocks

All work With GR/SR !
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
"he began an affair with his cousin, Elsa"
Incest, there is a "family dynamic"!


So you disapprove of Albert Einstein.
That is irrelevant and boring .
Just prove SR, GRT, the molecular interpretation of Brownian motion and the theory of the photoelectric effect wrong. When you done, come back with your claims.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
There is no need to refer to Crothers to show GRT incorrect, experiment does that just fine.

http://www.nature...-1.18255

"No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong." Einstein

There it is, along with his challenge to prove a negative.

No one really understands what is going on in the case of entanglement.
However, it does not involve information travelling faster than the speed of light.
SR and GRT are in no way invalidated nor is E's Nobel prize work.
cd45, you should take back your absurd statements and accusations.
indio007
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
@indio007,

One key clue is Crothers presents version of the equation without references & not in complete form then attacks with facile interpretation...

Cheers


This is a straight lie. If there are no reference how do you know they are not in complete form?

You showed your hand when you went down the ad hominim path.

my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2016
We're not going to discuss Crothers here.
Fact is that cd45 and of course village nut viko made some serious claims here.
They can't back them up.
I still; don't know what indio is saying. Something about the ninth grade that he passed.
Empty handed nuts, the usual.
See you next time.
Hyperfuzzy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
Wow! Bull S#it makes more sense than common sense!
djusko
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2016
You can say that again, BS makes more sense than common sense!
No one really understands what is going on in the case of entanglement.
Later, Don
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
No one really understands what is going on in the case of entanglement.
However, it does not involve information travelling faster than the speed of light.


It in fact does exactly that, information transmits nearly instantaneously across space. Time is universal. And there is a medium which allows these longitudinal waves.
Hyperfuzzy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
Every thing is entangled. These particles, the real ones, have existed for an eternity. Measurement and interpretation is flawed. So yes, no one knows what they are are looking for they have been misled. It is simpler than than this; but, no one listens to obvious truth, only implications of magic. Thus a "cash cow" for Nobel. Just a series of "magic" tricks, misdirection, misinformation, nonsense, ... optical connectors than send a clean signal yet a delay? Impossible? So, go figure ... anti matter? How many ways may we configure the "+" and "-" particles for a stable planet? Gluons? Really? Particle wave duality? Really? How? When the particle count is always a constant and particles create waves, stationary particles a static field? Reality! juz say'n
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
No one really understands what is going on in the case of entanglement.
However, it does not involve information travelling faster than the speed of light.


It in fact does exactly that, information transmits nearly instantaneously across space. Time is universal. And there is a medium which allows these longitudinal waves.

No it does not.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
Every thing is entangled. These particles, the real ones, have existed for an eternity.

So far so good, but then ... oops, lost it ...
cantdrive85
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2016
No one really understands what is going on in the case of entanglement.
However, it does not involve information travelling faster than the speed of light.


It in fact does exactly that, information transmits nearly instantaneously across space. Time is universal. And there is a medium which allows these longitudinal waves.

No it does not.

Yuh huh...It does so!
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2016
Every thing is entangled. These particles, the real ones, have existed for an eternity.

So far so good, but then ... oops, lost it ...


Sorry, what did you not understand? Email me, hyperfuzzy@gmail,com
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
Why does a total ignoramus attack Einstein on the basis of a stupid error ?
Narcissism? Antisemitism? Stupidity? Dunning-Kruger?
https://en.wikipe...chanics:
"Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication of information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying behaviour doesn't violate local causality or allow FTL it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent"
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
@cd
See what happens if you make big claims about all these difficult subjects that you do not understand? You make a big fool of yourself. Why don't you listen more and claim less. And study 16 hours a day. You may be a physicist after a number of years.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2016
It in fact does exactly that, information transmits nearly instantaneously across space.

No it does not. I've asked you to look up the word "information" before. It does not mean what you think it means. As long as you persist in this wrong definition you'll just produce what we programmers refer to as GIGO (garbage in - garbage out).

Einstein talked about spooky ACTION at a distance. Not spooky INFORMATION TRANSMISSION at a distance. He chose his words very carefully. The two are not the same (again, this will be very apparent once you look what information transmission actually means)
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2016
cantdrive85 "lost it"
No it does not.

Yuh huh...It does so! Well my mummy told me my baseball card is better than yours - so there ! :p shakes head

& indio007 says This is a straight lie. If there are no reference how do you know they are not in complete form? Wrong !
Einsteins field equations posted all over net & relatively stable sources ;-)
https://en.wikipe...quations

Crothers makes up a slide showing obviously incorrect manipulation of equation then makes a strawman claim re BH & NOT supply any reference as to WHY he did, shows definitively he's either ignorant of correct protocol or purposely evasive to hide great math ignorance !

indio007 claimed
You showed your hand when you went down the ad hominim path
No. Crothers Starts with an attack and whats worse to an anonymous audience via youtube. He comes across as someone who contrived a payment to show Einstein wrong & misleads

You haven't answered my Q's ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
Evidence against cantdrive85 who claimsv
... information transmits nearly instantaneously across space
WoW ! "nearly" you say, surely there is an Epsilon multiplier in there somewhere or is it "nearly" close to the speed of light ?

cantdrive85, please avail yourself of antialias_physorg's commentary, he is more patient that I & especially to inform those that; just___don't___get___it !

Also for Indio007 Please watch opening 10mins or so re Einsteins Field Equations & tell us WHY S.J Crothers just HAS TO manipulate it to even start to make any sort of case ?
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8

Do you get it, Crothers doesnt have a leg to stand on, approach is flawed, equation manipulation is flawed, his interpretation is facile &more than Wrong/

Evidence shows he's NIL understanding of Gauss' theorem/laws on which Field equations are based !

cantdrive85 says
Time is universal
At what rate & what 'wave' medium, how does Math describe it ?
indio007
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2016
Oh please the first 10 minutes is not even relevant to anything crothers says.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2016
There are no sources that support any argument. We don't know. QM is only a short cut using the wave equation to discover actions that create these waves. We still don't know what charge is. Any random science that pops into someone's mind that requires the theory to prove the theory is illogical. Just apply vector algebra and correct misconceptions of a signal from a satellite. Optics to define the perihelion visibility of mercury. Don't blame scientist for using tools at hand because they did not have a big computer. An argument of "Truth" begins with doubt.
baudrunner
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2016
Whoa..! I was starting to snag chunks of copies of all the various posts going down on this page and I think the most pressing thing out of it all that I like to point out that is the source of all the discussion about space-time and the difficulty of plotting between points in space, since each is representative of its own frame of reference in space-time, which is what Einstein repeatedly stated and which he sums up elegantly in the last paragraph of a contribution titled Space-Time that he wrote for the Encyclopedia Britannica and which was published in the 1926 edition.
no absolute meaning can be assigned to the conception of the simultaneity of events that occur at points separated by a distance in space
and
If no co-ordinate system (inertial system) is used as a basis of reference there is no sense in asserting that events at different points in space occur simultaneously.

http://www.britan...-1987141
Hyperfuzzy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2016
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
indio007 claims
Oh please the first 10 minutes is not even relevant to anything crothers says
Wrong !
In relation to https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8
Field equations shown in beginning overlayed with list of precise items needed to be understood to derive them, he refers you to more detail re lecture by Susskind. Its the proper process, Crothers fails at All of that & worse in so many basic uneducated ways :-(

Why are you unable to understand you've been fooled by Crothers, there are so many failures of; method, maths, interpretation & worst is he outright lies about the equations, why does he misrepresent them & so Very badly too ?

You Still haven't address any one of the scenarios re Evidence proving relativity ?

Start with addressing just a simple one, ie NIST atomic clocks with fantastic resolution able to resolve a GR height difference of 33cm & a SR speed difference of as little as 20mph ?

Please Learn Physics ie Start with Susskind lectures
baudrunner
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2016

http://www.britan...-1987141

Rubish

Google says: Did you mean: Rubbish

I don't know why you called the article rubbish, other than that attitude of yours places you above the rest, and if that makes you happy, well..

Einstein wrote the article. He would have been 47 years old in 1926. He wrote it for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and he rightly perceived that the readers of the encyclopedia were mostly students, including students of mathematics, and the article is didactic in nature for this reason.

..but, rubbish? I think not. You don't appear to have much of an understanding of human nature, let alone relativity.

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2016
...
You don't appear to have much of an understanding of human nature, let alone relativity.


OK, my choice of wording was rather awful and my spelling is horrific; however, I think science should be pragmatic and easily provable from observation and not theory to define observation. The thought and assumption to define a theory is without precedent when the Huygens principle only applies to the frame of the wave and not any frame, also as Maxwell defining the wave. So I reject this when it is easily seen that if the red shift exist then any frames reference to the wave would produce vector addable results. The idea of no reference is unscientific, every measurement is based upon a reference. Einstein's assumptions on light speed, mass, and simultaneity denies logic. It is saying "something that is, is not something that is." Complete nonsense. I'm glad I don't get it.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2016

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.