Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test

November 25, 2016 by Hayley Dunning, Imperial College London
Credit: Imperial College London

Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - and not constant as Einstein suggested - have made a prediction that could be tested.

Einstein observed that the of remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations.

The assumption that the speed of light is constant, and always has been, underpins many theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In particular, it plays a role in models of what happened in the very , seconds after the Big Bang.

But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity.

Structures in the universe, for example galaxies, all formed from fluctuations in the early universe – tiny differences in density from one region to another. A record of these early fluctuations is imprinted on the – a map of the oldest light in the universe – in the form of a 'spectral index'.

Working with their theory that the fluctuations were influenced by a varying speed of light in the early universe, Professor Magueijo and Dr Afshordi have now used a model to put an exact figure on the spectral index. The predicted figure and the model it is based on are published in the journal Physical Review D.

Cosmologists are currently getting ever more precise readings of this figure, so that prediction could soon be tested – either confirming or ruling out the team's model of the early universe. Their figure is a very precise 0.96478. This is close to the current estimate of readings of the cosmic microwave background, which puts it around 0.968, with some margin of error.

RADICAL IDEA

Professor Magueijo said: "The theory, which we first proposed in the late-1990s, has now reached a maturity point – it has produced a testable prediction. If observations in the near future do find this number to be accurate, it could lead to a modification of Einstein's theory of gravity.

"The idea that the speed of light could be variable was radical when first proposed, but with a numerical prediction, it becomes something physicists can actually test. If true, it would mean that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today."

The testability of the varying speed of light theory sets it apart from the more mainstream rival theory: inflation. Inflation says that the early universe went through an extremely rapid expansion phase, much faster than the current rate of expansion of the universe.

THE HORIZON PROBLEM

These theories are necessary to overcome what physicists call the 'horizon problem'. The universe as we see it today appears to be everywhere broadly the same, for example it has a relatively homogenous density.

This could only be true if all regions of the universe were able to influence each other. However, if the speed of light has always been the same, then not enough time has passed for light to have travelled to the edge of the universe, and 'even out' the energy.

As an analogy, to heat up a room evenly, the warm air from radiators at either end has to travel across the room and mix fully. The problem for the universe is that the 'room' – the observed size of the universe – appears to be too large for this to have happened in the time since it was formed.

The varying speed of light theory suggests that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, allowing the distant edges to be connected as the universe expanded. The speed of light would have then dropped in a predictable way as the density of the universe changed. This variability led the team to the prediction published today.

The alternative is inflation, which attempts to solve this problem by saying that the very early universe evened out while incredibly small, and then suddenly expanded, with the uniformity already imprinted on it. While this means the speed of light and the other laws of physics as we know them are preserved, it requires the invention of an 'inflation field' – a set of conditions that only existed at the time.

'Critical geometry of a thermal ' by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo is published in Physical Review D.

Explore further: Theory redraws formation of early universe

More information: Niayesh Afshordi et al. Critical geometry of a thermal big bang, Physical Review D (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301

Related Stories

Recommended for you

How community structure affects the resilience of a network

June 22, 2018

Network theory is a method for analyzing the connections between nodes in a system. One of the most compelling aspects of network theory is that discoveries related to one field, such as cellular biology, can be abstracted ...

The pho­to­elec­tric ef­fect in stereo

June 22, 2018

In the photoelectric effect, a photon ejects an electron from a material. Researchers at ETH have now used attosecond laser pulses to measure the time evolution of this effect in molecules. From their results they can deduce ...

Water can be very dead, electrically speaking

June 21, 2018

In a study published in Science this week, the researchers describe the dielectric properties of water that is only a few molecules thick. Such water was previously predicted to exhibit a reduced electric response but it ...

889 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

billpress11
2 / 5 (25) Nov 25, 2016
There is a simple explanation to the 'horizon problem', the BB never happened and the universe is infinite in size and age and recycles itself as far as we can be determined at this time. That could be why the universe appears nearly the same in every direction.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.
Gigel
4.5 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.


That's wrong. If a ``theory'', such as Einstein's relativity, derives in effect that 1 = 2, you must know that there's no experiment that would validate such derivation. Therefore, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics before wasting time and money to set up experiments aimed at validating it.
Cliche
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant).
3. If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.
Where is the fallacy in Einstein's theory then?
ursiny33
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2016
The comic backround could actually be multi trillions of years old and are signatures of multible universe's of Hydrogen atom based constructions surrounding our construction which is newer in time.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant).
3. If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.
Where is the fallacy in Einstein's theory then?


The fallacy of Einstein's relativity is that it contradicts absolute truths such as the absolute truth that 1 is not equal to 2: timeisabsolute.org
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (27) Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.


Then off you go, and design a GPS system that doesn't correct for relativity. Get back to us when you've done it. Let us know which airplanes you've installed it on, so that the rest of us can avoid them.

http://www.astron...gps.html
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (25) Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.
FloPhys
4.2 / 5 (21) Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Curiosity got the better of me and, like a train wreck, I had to check out that quackery. It seems to eventually make its way to some professor named Vesselin C. Noninski. He has a YouTube channel. Prepare to be entertained! (But not educated).

The only credentials I could find for professor Noninski were to something called the Sophia Institute in NY which is some sort of religious institution.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
Yes, the speed of light can change not only relative to a reference frame but also with the change of the properties of its medium ether, just like sound, as proved on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally. The most well-known evidence is the absolute time shown by the universally synchronized clocks on the GPS satellites moving at huge velocities relative to each other, while special relativity claims that time is relative and can never be synchronized on clocks moving at different velocities.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Really. Come to timeisabsolute.org and show where it's ``random nonsense cobbled together''. If you can't show, you must apologize, to say the least.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.


Then off you go, and design a GPS system that doesn't correct for relativity. Get back to us when you've done it. Let us know which airplanes you've installed it on, so that the rest of us can avoid them.

http://www.astron...gps.html


This would be a waste of my time, effort and money. You may take a look at https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM where it's clearly explained why GPS satellites cannot prove Einstein's relativity Or, better yet, read timeisabsolute.org and try to understand why Einstein's relativity is invalid and must be removed from physics.
Omnibus101
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Curiosity got the better of me and, like a train wreck, I had to check out that quackery. It seems to eventually make its way to some professor named Vesselin C. Noninski. He has a YouTube channel. Prepare to be entertained! (But not educated).

The only credentials I could find for professor Noninski were to something called the Sophia Institute in NY which is some sort of religious institution.


Doxxing won't do it. You must know science, then read carefully timeisabsolute.org and come here with valid scientific arguments, not doxxing around internet trying to sidetrack your obligation to come up w/ real scientific arguments, if you're dead-set on criticizing.

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.

Just a niggle: Your subjective time (they way you 'feel' time) is always at the same speed - no matter how fast you travel (e.g. according to Einstein you measure the speed of light as c no matter in what - non accelerated - reference frame you are). But you experience *other* stuff is affected.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.
Omnibus101
1.2 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.
winthrom
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
The speed of light is constrained in our space-time continuum but not necessarily where the forces we experience in our galactic space are virtually non-existent. Consider the vast emptiness between galaxies. In that locale the forces of gravity are no longer local and strong. Even dark matter/energy does not exist everywhere in those empty regions. The constraint in our galactic continuum is gravity's effect on time, which changes the light's direction and speed where gravity is strong enough (large star like our sun). In a gravity well, an observer measures light speed and gets "c". Outside the gravity well another observer measures and gets "c". The rate of time passage is different for each observer, so while each observer gets "c", the relatives values of each gravitational/time field render "c" different in an absolute sense but the same to each observer. The frequency shift each observer sees from the other observer's test light beam is the absolute variation.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2016
............as *proved* on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally.


No, as *claimed* by the author of that paper (cited by nobody). If it had *proved* STR wrong, it would have been front page news. As it stands, nobody has taken it seriously enough to even cite it.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Awww, diddums. And I gave you a scientific argument. And all you have in return is crank science websites and youtube.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2016
............as *proved* on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally.


No, as *claimed* by the author of that paper (cited by nobody). If it had *proved* STR wrong, it would have been front page news. As it stands, nobody has taken it seriously enough to even cite it.



That's not an argument either. The fact that no one has taken it seriously enough is not a scientific proof for the invalidity of Einstein's relativity. You try to sidetrack you obligation to present a scientific argument by relegating this task to others. That shows that you yourself have no argument. So, then, it would be prodent to remove yourself from this exchange because you're just wasting everybody's time.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Awww, diddums. And I gave you a scientific argument. And all you have in return is crank science websites and youtube.


No, you did not give me a scientific argument. Gibberish and ad hominem attacks are not a scientific argument.
pax2016
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


So obviously you don't have a scientific argument. Be careful about what you so cavalierly say and who you
say these things to. The author of timeisabsolute.org as well as the video in question has the highest scientific credentials possible, obtained with record breaking highest averages. So "cut the crap" and get serious about science.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.


That's wrong. If a ``theory'', such as Einstein's relativity, derives in effect that 1 = 2,

Indeed, you could still work on theories that are not even wrong.


Indeed, Einstein's relativity is not even wrong. It's travesty of science.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
In fact, there are questions about "relativity". There still seem to be seasonal difference sin the Michelson-Morley Experiment that those who concoct "official stories" don't want to touch. And, frankly, note the "scientific" imbecility of pointing to GPS devices as "proof" "relativity" works. No one who insist on that has ever taken their GPS apart to see if it really does use "relativistic" equations! They are claiming something without knowing it's true! And pointing to what the "news' would report is affected by the fact that all "news" is a lie.
It should be mentioned, homogeneity does not necessarily need contact. Operating under the same physical laws, two different parts of the universe supposedly will tend toward the same state. Or is there a signal faster than light that ensures that a million dice rolled simultaneously everywhere will come to the same average value just about always?
carbon_unit
3 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
Nice to see a testable theory. We will learn something whether or not the theory is verified.

I must admit to not comprehending why the horizon problem is a problem. Why must disparate parts of the universe be able to exchange information to account for the uniformity? Isn't it enough that they are following the same laws of physics? Wouldn't that be enough to account for the uniformity?
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2016
@Pax2016

So obviously you don't have a scientific argument. Be careful about what you so cavalierly say and who you
say these things to. The author of timeisabsolute.org as well as the video in question has the highest scientific credentials possible, obtained with record breaking highest averages. So "cut the crap" and get serious about science.

I see you just joined, perhaps 5 minutes ago to help Omnibus101 push pseudoscience against the guidelines, which unfortunately are not enforced.
Are you twins?


Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
Nice to see a testable theory. We will learn something whether or not the theory is verified.

I must admit to not comprehending why the horizon problem is a problem. Why must disparate parts of the universe be able to exchange information to account for the uniformity? Isn't it enough that they are following the same laws of physics? Wouldn't that be enough to account for the uniformity?


Not at all. Einstein's relativity is not only not testable but it isn't even wrong. It's a travesty of science: cf. timeisabsolute.org
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus
I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.

If there was moderation your posts would be deleted on account of the "Keep Science" guideline.
See http://phys.org/help/comments/ .

e the contrary. Your posts will be deleted on account of as hominem attacks.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant). ...


The fallacy of Einstein's relativity is

You failed notice the contradiction between statements 1 and 2. That qualifies you for research on theories that are not even wrong.
that it contradicts absolute truths such as the absolute truth that 1 is not equal to 2: timeisabsolute.org

Only because of the definitions of "1" and "2".
There is no absolute truth in contradictions.


On the contrary, there is absolute truth. An absolute truth, for instance, is the fact that one body in one system cannot obey two different laws of motion simultaneously, as Einstein derives. Just because of this derived nonsense Einstein's relativity must go without any attempt whatsoever to verify experimentally such senselessness.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
Phys.org, could you remove these jokers?


Your posts must be removed because, aside from bad manners, they prove your incompetence to participate in the discussion at hand.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
@Omnibus101
You have the right to be wrong.
Just don't litter this place with your mistakes.
Thanks.


Where are my mistakes? Show them. Come to timeisabsolute.org and show the mistakes.

If you can't you should be the one to stop littering this place and should apologize.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
@Omnibus101
You have the right to be wrong.
Just don't litter this place with your mistakes.
Thanks.


Where are my mistakes? Show them.

Everything you posted here is wrong.

If you can't you should be the one to stop littering this place

Don't echo my statements. It is less than impressive to copy someone else.
and should apologize.

Are you insulted if someone tells you that you are wrong?
You should be thankful instead.


Post on timeisabsolute.org where exactly is the error. If you can't (and you obviously can't) please apologize.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
Phys.org, could you remove these jokers?


Your posts must be removed because, aside from bad manners, they prove your incompetence to participate in the discussion at hand.

You make statements that are in contradiction with the full body of 111 years of physics. You must be joking, or extremely foolish.
Now which one do you prefer ?
I offer you a way out and save your face.
Thank me. :)


Full body of almost 2000 years of physics has been contradicted by Copernicus heliocentricism. 111 years are negligible in comparison. You should address the argument itself and not try to come up with funny arguments aimed at concealing your incompetence. You're incompetent and that shows badly in this exchange. What nerve!
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
Why are you so bent on questioning my competence?


Why not? After all you are just another one of the headcases living here on this site, who in defiance of application of the Inverse Square Law, has stated that an Infinite Gravity Well can exist at the center of a stellar mass dubbed Black Hole creating a condition of Infinite Density at it's center.

Until I pointed it out to you, & a few other of your aficionados living here, you did not know that the force of gravity of a stellar mass is calculated from it's surface, not from it's center where it is readily calculable to be ZERO.
richdiggins
1 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2016
@JP
They are claiming something without knowing it's true!

That is what you and your constituency do all the time.
In the mean time, you seem to not understand physics.
Want an education? Start with this page of a real professor.
http://www.astron...gps.html


Can I get another glass of that Kool-Aid?

Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.

These variations are much larger than any supposed relativity related errors.

Personally, I don't feel general/special relativity has been around long enough to consider it gospel.

Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2016
You say that the full body of physics developed since 1905 is negligible compared to the full body of physics of before 1500. That is at least as wrong and foolish as anything you have said so far. I am telling you like it is, so don't get all emotional again.
It appears things are only getting worse with you.
Change your nick and start over :) .


Change my nick? Are you kiddin' me? You should change your nick to avoid further embarrassment. The years of persistence of a wrong theory cannot trump in any way the legitimate (as in the case at hand) arguments against it. You've got to get some science training, to understand how science works, before coming here to argue.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2016
@JP
They are claiming something without knowing it's true!

That is what you and your constituency do all the time.
In the mean time, you seem to not understand physics.
Want an education? Start with this page of a real professor.
http://www.astron...gps.html


Can I get another glass of that Kool-Aid?

Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.

These variations are much larger than any supposed relativity related errors.

Personally, I don't feel general/special relativity has been around long enough to consider it gospel.



Exactly. The finite velocity of the signals is the culprit for the GPS corrections.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2016
Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.


Jesus H. Christ. Yes, these scientists and engineers are so stupid, that they didn't bother to figure out that there would be a time delay in the signal from the satellite due to distance! It is ALL accounted for. Without the changes factored in for relativity, your GPS would be out by a considerable distance very shortly. Not because the bloody satellite is a few hundred kilometres above the Earth. When they send a command to Cassini, do you think they all sit around dumbfounded that they aren't getting an instant reply?

Cranks, bloody place is full of them!
Big Fat Al
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Oh brother! When will the Young Earth crowd start running with this???
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Your inverse square law, which is contradicted by Mercury's perihelion advance, is the solution of Poisson's equation with a singularity at the origin. Also, all I have stated and state again is that BHs are a consequence of GRT,


......and everytime I challenge you to post the relevant section of General Relativity that BHs are a consequence of GRT, you run & hide. The fact of the matter is that there is no such evidence in GR & you can't prove differently, which if you could you would have already done it long ago in the past, instead you simply retrace your usual fallback position of going foul mouth with blizzards of profanity doing a zany Zwicky imitation.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2016
Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org


A crank website, authored by someone totally anonymous. As such it is worthless, just like the large preponderance of other pseudoscientific rubbish floating around the web.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2016
http://www.gps.go...200C.pdf

That is a link to the (160 page) GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993).
For anybody that cares to read it. Use your PDF search function to look for 'relativistic'. Strange how they factored that stuff in, and it is so damn accurate.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
......and everytime I challenge you to post the relevant section of General Relativity that BHs are a consequence of GRT, you run & hide.


Did I ? Every time I patiently gave you the Schwarzschild papers, about which your saint or perhaps, god, Einstein was enthousiastic because they proved his theory correct.
... and Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math does not appear in GR & you can't prove differently.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such evidence in GR & you can't prove differently,


I don't have to. The proof was given in January 1916
......you are really this old?

.
which if you could you would have already done it long ago in the past, instead you simply retrace your usual fallback position of going foul mouth with blizzards of profanity doing a zany Zwicky imitation.

Kneel for Zwicky, you roach.


.....and the Zany Zwicky Syndrome surfaces yet again.

Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2016
Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org


A crank website, authored by someone totally anonymous. As such it is worthless, just like the large preponderance of other pseudoscientific rubbish floating around the web.


So, it's not the argument itself but who and where it's published matters? Have you no decency? By the way, there is nowhere in the net or anywhere else for that matter, an argument so succinct and definitive, unequivocally proving the invalidity of Einstein's relativity, as in timeisabsolute.org.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Have you no decency?

... obviously wrong.


You're not kidding. Anybody may blabber like you.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/ICD-GPS-200C.pdf

That is a link to the (160 page) GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993).
For anybody that cares to read it. Use your PDF search function to look for 'relativistic'. Strange how they factored that stuff in, and it is so damn accurate.


Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.
Benni
1 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
I don't have to. The proof was given in January 1916


.....you are really this old?
.......I mean that you were even at that time writing Commentary about presumed content of General Relativity?

Are you then totally unaware of Schwarzschild's papers?
Right......Black Hole Math, infinitely dense singularities created by Infinite Wells of Gravity, totally contrary to Einstein's GR & you still can't prove differently by anything you can quote from the text of General Relativity......of course you need to read it first.

All you showed here was the same quote over and over again, without reference.
.....yep that's what you do, make up a pseudo-science narrative & challenge naysayers to prove it's wrong.

You can't hide from me Benni. I see the true little psycho that you are.
...the Zany Zwicky Syndrome surfacing yet again.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
By the way, there is nowhere in the net or anywhere else for that matter, an argument so succinct and definitive, unequivocally proving the invalidity of Einstein's relativity, as in timeisabsolute.org.


Yep, anonymous pages on the web is where all the best science is! If the author had anything to say, he'd have it in a respectable, high impact physics journal, and shortly thereafter it'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. This would then be followed by the arrival of free tickets to Stockholm.
Like I said, it's worthless.

On the other hand, a father and his 3 kids can take a short mountain holiday, and in the process confirm the predictions of GR wrt positive time dilation: http://www.leapse...eat2005/
Now, that is a thoroughly worthwhile webpage, and the author isn't anonymous.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2016
Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.


Lol. Argumentum ad Youtubem. The hangout of all the top cranks. It'd be interesting to understand the psychology of these people. What is it they are trying to achieve? They must realise that nobody who matters is taking the slightest bit of notice.
Scientists have enough to do just keeping up with the real science being published in their field. They sure as hell aren't going to be scouring various crank science sites and bloody youtube as well!
I guess they garner a few followers, and that makes them feel good about themselves. Or they try to flog you stuff, like EU.

Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
a father and his 3 kids can take a short mountain holiday, and in the process confirm the predictions of GR wrt positive time dilation: http://www.leapse...eat2005/
Now, that is a thoroughly worthwhile webpage, and the author isn't anonymous.


So why not continue following your reasoning & apply that to anything else for which claims are made attributing something to Special or General Relativity. Examine the claim Phys1 makes that:

"BHs are a consequence of GRT"


Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?

Reg Mundy
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's SR and GR theories? For heavens sake, they are only a best-we-can-do model, not reality. They serve their purpose, and any "improvement" does not invalidate them as they have proved adequate for our use many times.
By the way, Fizzwun, you should pick on somebody your own size, and stop goading the afflicted. Good job Benni is here to prick your ego.....
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?


Where was I talking about black holes? You're obsessed. Write it up, or give it up. I, for one, am sick of having to read it on here. You're proving nothing. Nobody is listening.
Omnibus101
1.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2016
Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.


Lol. Argumentum ad Youtubem. The hangout of all the top cranks. It'd be interesting to understand the psychology of these people. What is it they are trying to achieve? They must realise that nobody who matters is taking the slightest bit of notice.
Scientists have enough to do just keeping up with the real science being published in their field. They sure as hell aren't going to be scouring various crank science sites and bloody youtube as well!
I guess they garner a few followers, and that makes them feel good about themselves. Or they try to flog you stuff, like EU.


Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2016
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
It's also worth mentioning that there is another prediction the model makes: no gravitational waves produced. That helps make it "the most predictive model on offer..." having "a simple geometrical interpretation as a probe3-brane embedded in an E AdS_2 x E_3 geometry." There's a preprint on arXiv – https://arxiv.org....03312v2
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?
Some friendly advice, mate. Before taking that cheap shot at him, that does nothing for science discussion but only for your ego-tripping, please ensure your 'cheap shot' does not 'ricochet' back at you!

Because your above cheap shot can also be made against those who are at this very moment still in confusion/denial due to the truth Prof Paul Steinhardt has finally pointed out to his professional colleagues in a lecture wherein he points out "Inflation" etc always has had no supporting logical/physical 'evidence' for it. Apparently "the truth hurts" is a truism well and truly demonstrated by many 'mainstreamers' not yet ready to face the truth when it is told to them by one of their own.

So, mate, less personal barbs/cheap shots. Just stick to the science issues/points in discussion. Else you may find yourself hit in your own posterior by your own 'cheap shots'. Cheers. :)
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
@RC,
Mind your own bloody business. I was referring to his constant referencing (promoting) of an anonymous webpage, backed up by youtube videos. So I'll repeat; what is that meant to achieve? What do they get out of it? Who the hell is going to take any notice of it?
Or is that how you believe science should be carried out?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?


Where was I talking about black holes? You're obsessed. Write it up, or give it up. I, for one, am sick of having to read it on here. You're proving nothing. Nobody is listening.


Hey there Jonesy, you're the one talking about GPS based on General Relativity like you are an expert in it, I'm just probing you to find out how much expertise you really have as compared Phys1's persistently snarky responses. Maybe you enjoy his foul mouth?

I'm an Electrical Engineer with six years of Nuclear/Electrical Engineering education under my belt, and I like to know who I'm conversing with when I engage others in topics about science, especially SR & GR.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave.
@RC,
Mind your own bloody business....
I would have thought that objectivity, fairness, politeness and science discussion of the science issue at hand was the 'business' of all impartial observers/commenters. That is what this forum is for. Anything less is mere social media twaddling and trolling. Even if one does not agree with the points/arguments posted, the disagreement/discussion should be constrained to actual science/logics points posted; not irrelevant personal/source disparagement, which has no part in truly objective/courteous on-substantive-point discussions in science/logics.

So, re your 'truth hurts' angle, have you viewed/understood all of Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture to his colleagues (linked previously/elsewhere)? Does that truth pointed out by Prof Steinhardt re "Inflation" etc have any effect on your attitude/certainty (or, in your own words: does "the truth hurts" in your case)?

Anyhow, take it easy; be less 'personal', hey? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2016
As an analogy, to heat up a room evenly, the warm air from radiators at either end has to travel across the room and mix fully. The problem for the universe is that the 'room' – the observed size of the universe – appears to be too large for this to have happened in the time since it was formed.


........what a totally laughable conclusion. How do these researchers know this? If they'd study Section 3 of General Relativity & learn a few things about Entropy that I learned in Thermodynamics courses in Engineering School, they'd sure eat those words in a hurry.

How many here know what's in Section 3 of General Relativity?

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?


Nonsense.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2016
@RC,
Who the hell was referring to Paul whatsisname? I was referring purely to the silly claims of a poster, that time dilation due to SR/ GR was false. And his constant promoting of a webpage. It has been shown beyond doubt to be true. I am not getting into a long winded argument about anything else, as with Benni's black hole obsession.

@Benni,
Not that it's anyone's business, but I have a BSc (Hons) Astronomy. Mostly planetary science.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, if you want to go on about your current obsession, why not link us to something where this is clearly spelled out? Is it your idea? If not, then link us to whoever is saying this.
And this place is not conducive to this sort of debate. Try ISF. Plenty of physicists and mathematicians there who would be happy to debate your contentions with you: http://www.intern...cs+black
Resurrect that thread, and debate it there.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2016
How many here know what's in Section 3 of General Relativity? Well Jonsey, for your edification I've copied a small portion of the text below:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Hi Benni. :)

That 'problem' they mention (in your quote from above PO article) only ever 'arose' because of Big Bang scenarios.

Infinite, Eternal locally/regionally 'energy-matter recycling' universe scenario has no such 'problem'.

For, as some observers have already pointed out, every locality/region is evolving according to the SAME physical laws, irrespective of location/region EPOCH.

Differences in 'present stage' states/distributions can arise from place to place/time to time due to 'evolutionary stage-related' quantum/chaos fluctuations producing slightly different 'evolutionary trajectories/states' resulting over time in any particular affected localities/regions phenomena. But overall, the differences average out and the recycling processes 'rehash' major differences, so 'smoothing out' major large scale anisotropy.

PS: Benni, the above in addition/complement to your point re thermodynamics/entropy, no matter scale of energy-space 'feature' under study. :)

RealityCheck
1.1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)

I was only curious about your attitude to Steinhardt's lecture which pointed out the truth about "Inflation" being bogus all along. That curiosity, about your own 'attitude' to truth, was triggered by your "the truth hurts" cheap shot to that poster.

In any case, I am interested in everyone's comments/re-evaluations of their own prior stances after Steinhardt (finally) telling his colleagues the truth about such longstanding furphy as "inflation" etc which has infected the cosmology literature/claims/mentality for far too many decades now.

It is even more intriguing that all the mainstreamers here are strangely 'silent'; 'volunteering' no commentary on that truth-telling by Steinhardt; but remain reluctant unless prompted; why is that?

Anyhow, that is why I am taking every opportunity to ask everyone what their comment is on that truth finally told by 'one of your own', as it were. What is your comment on that, mate? :)
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2016
That 'problem' they mention (in your quote from above PO article) only ever 'arose' because of Big Bang scenarios.


Yeah I know, I just get such a chuckle out of their efforts when TESTABLE science flies straight into the face of their laughable narratives.

Infinite, Eternal locally/regionally 'energy-matter recycling' universe scenario has no such 'problem'.
.....seems that way to me as well, but I haven't been alive forever to be witness to it.

the differences average out and the recycling processes 'rehash' major differences, so 'smoothing out' major large scale anisotropy.
......I prefer to view the "smoothing out" as the random nature energy distributes itself throughout whatever borders it's being confined in, alias Entropy.

hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2016
Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR.


I couldn't give a tupenny ****.! I wasn't talking about black holes. You were. I have no interest in discussing it. As I said, there are far more appropriate places to discuss it. As I linked you to. If your maths is up to it, go discuss it there.
http://www.intern...cs+black
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
We will probably find light is as malleable. Since space is not empty, a spatial density is everywhere present and everywhere variable due to many constants, particles, fields, various flavors of photons, all will yield a different value to the terminal velocity of light. It could well be down to a multi-degree, multivariable, partial differential equation with almost infinite unknowns integrated by parts on an infinitely small quantum volume of many principle quantum numbers each governed by its own laws resulting perhaps in a non-discontuous rational function or maybe not or maybe even imaginary number functions. Resultant will be a nightmarishly large type of Fermi-Dirac coordinate vector partial differential equation set of many many equations in order to have a prayer of solution, and that only possible by a truly huge computer. The result if attainable will be a statistical marais of terminal light velocities whose mean will be about the normalized percieved speed of light.
Cliche
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.

Just a niggle: Your subjective time (they way you 'feel' time) is always at the same speed - no matter how fast you travel (e.g. according to Einstein you measure the speed of light as c no matter in what - non accelerated - reference frame you are). But you experience *other* stuff is affected.

Yes. Exactly.
But c is not the fastest speed achieved by light if there are other mediums "emptier" than vacuum that would have probably surrounded the universe seconds after big bang.
Porgie
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
It also means that the mysterious dark matter does not really exist. It could likely mean that so called dark matter is only dimensional anomalies causing the gravitational fluctuations to bleed over into our dimension. The anomalies due to the differences in the speed of light in the next diminution to bleed through. Which is infinitely more plausible than some invisible bulk of matter. E= mc^2 could be some other number which does change things. It could also mean Osiris1 that time is not constant either.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
"Einstein observed that the speed of light remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations."

He thought that since gravity curves the path of light, spacetime must be curved similarly. The path of light is changed by a different refractive index, meaning a medium, in this case spacetime, of different density. Yes spacetime density is reduced by gravity. So space differs in density, but I don't see how the speed of light remains constant in a different medium. As a matter of fact in a black hole there may be a singularity - a singularity in spacetime density. Matter could fold up and expel spacetime completely at the singularity. It's all because of spacetime expansion but not matter. Matter just gets the squeeze. The thicker your lenses, the more curvature in the path of light. But the medium may not be curved. It just has a different density or refractive index.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
cont
Look at it this way - the less spacetime there is in any given volume the harder light has to work to get through that volume. Spacetime is like the propagator. The less of it you have the less propagation and the speed of light decreases.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model.
So...redshift. Exactly as observed. Consequently in the early U the speed of light would have been blue shifted - much faster - so communication would have been much faster and the early U would have been more uniform. Or so it seems.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model. In this model our space-time expands uniformly
I think this would also apply in the accelerating expansion model. It would seem like in an expanding model the amount of space available for expansion would increase with expansion leading to exponential expansion. So the accelerated expansion should be no surprise. In fact I think there may be some interplay with temperature going on here so eventually when the U cools sufficiently the expansion stops and we avoid the situation where we eventually just get blown away. As a matter of fact as the temperature approaches zero we may experience a phase change as some people have been talking about and we could just collapse. But I don't think this will happen for some time as we haven't yet produced any temperatures that close to zero and observed any phase change in spacetime to my knowledge.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
...the increasing light speed can be explained with tired light model of Hubble red shift quite naturally. In this model the space-time doesn't expand, but the light is gradually losing its energy by scattering with quantum fluctuations of vacuum.
You're the first person I know of to attribute the tired light model to Hubble.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model. So...redshift. Exactly as observed.
Nope, you have it opposite: the expanding universe model has been implied from redshift.
Right. Thought that was what I said. Sorry.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Please note, that the dark energy is the dual analogy of dark matter around black holes, which makes the space-time around them more curved.
Sorry I can't wrap my mind around curved spacetime. Just because the light path curves when it passes through a different medium doesn't mean the medium is curved.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Einstein also didn't believe to space-time, black holes and gravitational waves, which are attributed to him...
Doesn't seem fair.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
This is very nonrelativistic attitude indeed: according to relativity the path of light is always straight - instead of it, it's the space-time what gets only curved here. It just illustrates, how deeply the contemporary physicists are confused by interpretations of their own theories.
Not only the physicists but the kids in our schools. Sad. Does the light through your glasses bend because of curvature of the lenses or the density of the medium?
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Therefore, according to general relativity therefore the relativistic aberration and gravitational lensing should be never observable
I didn't know that either. Surprise.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Without (existence of) gravitational lenses the general relativity would have nothing to predict -
I'm not sure what gravitational lensing has to do with clock frequency as a function of gravity.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
After all, the strictly local ("pin-point") perspective is abstract concept in the same way, like the flat space-time.
I never could relate to flat spacetime. The idea is that light goes in a straight line on the average in every direction of spacetime. So spacetime is not curved on the average. So if it's not curved it must be flat. I do think you could say the density of spacetime is uniform in every direction of spacetime on the average..
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Hey Socker2, have you ever chatted with a guy named Zephir? His comments, thoughts and views are plastered from one end of the Internet to the other.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
...it enables us to decide, whether the dark matter should be interpreted as a field or as a system of particles.
Simple. Neither one. Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Hey Socker2, have you ever chatted with a guy named Zephir? His comments, thoughts and views are plastered from one end of the Internet to the other.
He's been writing about AWT or whatever it is for at least 40 years or so it seems. Maybe he's trying to sell books. Sock it to 'em.!
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Not that it's anyone's business, but I have a BSc (Hons) Astronomy.
I knew it, didn't fool me, the superior level of intelligence, the thorough grasp of the subject matter and proper articulation of the terms all pretty much gave it away.
Mostly planetary science.
This explains why your comments on the Rosetta mission were so knowledgeable.

On behalf of the group "People For Just a Sane America Once and For All, Damnit Jim" your every effort is sincerely and deeply appreciated.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
The idea is that light goes in a straight line on the average in every direction of spacetime.
Yes, but this line remains straight only from 4D persecutive of space-time, i.e. the geodesics. From lower-dimensional 3D perspective of us, human creatures such a straight geodesics could still look curved.
The path of light cannot be tracked in 3 dimensions. You could plot 1 point but in 3 dimensions that's it.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
Simple. Neither one. Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density
While the small fluctuations behave gravitationally and they form spherical atmosphere AROUND galaxies, these larger ones ("cold" dark matter) have antigravity behavior and they fill the filaments BETWEEN galaxies.
Filaments between galaxies are regions of stretched spacetime having less density and thus appearing as it would if there were matter there to reduce its density.
No formal theory can describe all kinds of dark matter at the same moment, because the intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives cannot be interchanged.
So put mine down as informal.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
The path of light cannot be tracked in 3 dimensions
Why it shouldn't be possible?
Because once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
Filaments between galaxies are regions of stretched spacetime having less density
I don't also understand the term "stretched".
Pull on a rubber band. The density of rubber is then reduced along each point of the band. Similar to the density of spacetime in the filaments.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density
But it differs from normal gravitational lens which are also changing the "refractive index of spacetime or its density".
Yes. Gravitational lenses are regions of spacetime whose density is changed by the presence of nearby matter. Matter displaces spacetime and so its spacetime density is decreased. This reduction in density causes a gradient in the density of spacetime. It's like stretching the rubber band. Spacetime is elastic. Or so the theory goes.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 26, 2016
...once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension
Why the second point of 3D path should introduce the 4th dimension?
Because the different positions reflect the passage of time. You can't have a path without time to travel along the path.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 26, 2016
Spacetime is elastic. Or so the theory goes.
A better theory is spacetime is expanding. Reduce the expanding density and you increase the amount of force on each element of expanding spacetime like you increase the stretching force on each element of the rubber band when you stretch it. Some call spacetime expansion negative gravity. Seems counter-intuitive but personally I like it better.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 26, 2016
...Because the light really stops at the vicinity of black hole from perspective of every observer, which is larger than it.
Not likely that light stops at the vicinity of black holes. More likely it goes into orbit around the black hole where it may stay indefinitely.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 26, 2016
Some call spacetime expansion negative gravity. Seems counter-intuitive but personally I like it better.
Or repulsive gravity I guess it is.

humy
3.6 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2016
There is a simple explanation to the 'horizon problem', the BB never happened and the universe is infinite in size ....

How does that explain why the universe is expanding and that there are no stars older than a certain age etc?
If the universe is currently expanding then all the mass must have once been close together and then flew apart at great speed; this is by definition the BB.
humy
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.

Incorrect; you can make perfectly valid observations and conclusions from observing a physical effect even if we cannot experimentally make it happen ourselves.
Example;
We sometimes observe stars explode and conclude that certain types of stars can explode; but we cannot do an experiment to make a star explode ourselves, only observe.
humy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.

I just read your link and it is nonsense. It says;
"...Einstein's relativity derives the evidently physically impossible conclusion that one and the same body in one and the same system, system K, is supposed to obey two different laws of motion at the same time; .."
But then refers to the same law, not two different laws. Stupid.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.

I just read your link and it is nonsense. It says;
"...Einstein's relativity derives the evidently physically impossible conclusion that one and the same body in one and the same system, system K, is supposed to obey two different laws of motion at the same time; .."
But then refers to the same law, not two different laws. Stupid.


F = ma and F = beta^3ma are two different laws, which Einstein derives for one and the same body in one and the same system to be valid simultaneously. This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
@Suckertoo, Hawksauntie, Omnibutt1, etc.
...once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension

Talking about plots, I think you guys have lost it.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2016
This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.


Unfortunately for you, all experiments and observations so far have shown both SR & GR to be correct. So unless you've got something new to add, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. Anonymous webpages and YT videos are not impressing anyone that matters.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
... the energy density of curved space-time is proportional to its curvature.
Talking about plots, I think you guys have lost it.
Good point. It's the path that curves, not the medium.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR


You always post the same quote, without even giving the source.
You simply don't recognize a direct quote sourced from GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.


Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.


Unfortunately for you, all experiments and observations so far have shown both SR & GR to be correct. So unless you've got something new to add, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. Anonymous webpages and YT videos are not impressing anyone that matters.


On the contrary. It follows from Einstein's relativity that 1 equals 2, which no experiment whatsoever can show to be correct. Anyone that really matters will never be impressed by that and will request that Einstein's relativity be removed from physics.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
I hate to disappoint you but I already knew that decades ago.
........gets me to pondering something. I'll do some checking on the CalTech website.
Dark_Solar
1.3 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
Hmmm...going strictly by the definition of acceleration, it stands to reason that the speed of light can't be 100% constant; if one considers the gravitational sling-shot principle as a means of increasing a spacecraft's velocity, it then follows that light particles/waves deflected by a gravity source would obligatorily experience some level of velocity change.

Additionally, if time actually slows to a rate of not-quite-zero at light speed, it tends to indicate that light particles/waves exist in a quasi-suspended temporal state and that eventually every photon will lose just enough energy to fall out of relativistic time-lock and decay. Has anyone heard of or seen any maths that address this possibility?

Uncharted territory and super fascinating.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
On the contrary. It follows from Einstein's relativity that 1 equals 2, which no experiment whatsoever can show to be correct. Anyone that really matters will never be impressed by that and will request that Einstein's relativity be removed from physics.


Such as whom? Just because some anonymous person constructs a webpage (something I could do) has zero bearing on the matter. Who are these 'people that matter', that want to get rid of the experimentally and observationally confirmed SR & GR? Names, qualifications and positions, please.
Otherwise, as has been the case throughout this thread, you are just blowing hot air. As I've said, nobody is taking the slightest bit of notice.
You have no paper to refer to, and not even an author. In effect, you have nothing. Why on Earth would anybody take you seriously?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
Hmmm...going strictly by the definition of acceleration, it stands to reason that the speed of light can't be 100% constant; if one considers the gravitational sling-shot principle as a means of increasing a spacecraft's velocity, it then follows that light particles/waves deflected by a gravity source would obligatorily experience some level of velocity change.


Photons have ONLY inherent VELOCITY. Attributing ACCELERATION to photons isn't CALCULABLE but is TESTABLE as follows from the Shapiro Effect: that:

Proofs have never been shown that deflection actually slows photon velocity, but only that there is resulting increased trajectory of the flight-path of bent photons producing an observed lagging effect of time due to the angle of observation, thus the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight has a longer flight-path compared to non-deflected starlight from the same distance of the source to the observer.

Read up on Shapiro Effect.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016

Such as whom? Just because some anonymous person constructs a webpage (something I could do) has zero bearing on the matter. Who are these 'people that matter', that want to get rid of the experimentally and observationally confirmed SR & GR? Names, qualifications and positions, please.
Otherwise, as has been the case throughout this thread, you are just blowing hot air. As I've said, nobody is taking the slightest bit of notice.
You have no paper to refer to, and not even an author. In effect, you have nothing. Why on Earth would anybody take you seriously?


It's the argument that matters, not where and by whom it has been published. Anyone can make a website but not just anyone can come up with such a seminal argument overthrowing the most inappropriate theory that has overtaken physics, which can never be validated experimentally. Scientists who really matter recognize that. Others have non-scientific agendas.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
CMBR has origin in existent vodmic space. Universe is NOW.
Dark_Solar
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
Photons have ONLY inherent VELOCITY. Attributing ACCELERATION to photons isn't CALCULABLE but is TESTABLE as follows from the Shapiro Effect: that:

Proofs have never been shown that deflection actually slows photon velocity, but only that there is resulting increased trajectory of the flight-path of bent photons producing an observed lagging effect of time due to the angle of observation, thus the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight has a longer flight-path compared to non-deflected starlight from the same distance of the source to the observer.

Read up on Shapiro Effect.


Thanks, Benni; on it!! :D

Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
@Dark_Star
if time actually slows to a rate of not-quite-zero at light speed, it tends to indicate that light particles/waves exist in a quasi-suspended temporal state and that eventually every photon will lose just enough energy to fall out of relativistic time-lock and decay. Has anyone heard of or seen any maths that address this possibility?
Time is a measure of the expansion of matter. Movement is caused by expansion being biased in one direction. Light speed requires that the expansion takes place in only one dimension, thus the matter stops expanding three-dimensionally and time stops. See "The Situation of Gravity", free on Kindle.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
It's NOT an upper limit to velocity per se, but it IS an outgrowth of the interaction of equal but opposite quantum scale charges creating EM radiation. This is the fundamental force of the universe
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
Time is a measure of the expansion of matter. Movement is caused by expansion being biased in one direction. Light speed requires that the expansion takes place in only one dimension, thus the matter stops expanding three-dimensionally and time stops.


Hi Reg, I guess I might quibble with you just a wee bit on the "expansion of matter" as the ONLY measurement of TIME. TIME passage occurs with ANY MOVEMENT of matter, I don't see why there needs to ONLY be EXPANSION.

For example, when I'm watching the hands of a clock move, there is movement of matter, that is the hands of the clock & the gear wheels are "moving matter" but not "expanding matter" as the hands move from one number to another around the circumference, but there is no expansion of matter unless you consider the wear & tear caused by friction on the gear wheels, otherwise everything about the clock remains in position as it measures passage of time relative to the observer. Thoughts?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
It's NOT an upper limit to velocity per se, but it IS an outgrowth of the interaction of equal but opposite quantum scale charges creating EM radiation. This is the fundamental force of the universe

It IS an upper limit to velocity OF MATTER in our universe (photons are considered as matter).
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016

It's the argument that matters, not where and by whom it has been published. Anyone can make a website but not just anyone can come up with such a seminal argument overthrowing the most inappropriate theory that has overtaken physics, which can never be validated experimentally. Scientists who really matter recognize that. Others have non-scientific agendas.


Yes, it does matter where it is published. A webpage is not recognised in the field of science as a legitimate outlet. Ergo, it does not exist. And you keep forgetting that SR/ GR has been validated, experimentally and observationally. So you still have nothing. Literally.

And how many of the world's leading physicists and mathematicians have been through that paper with a fine toothed comb in 111 years? And you reckon some anonymous person has seen something that they have all missed? Sorry, no chance. If there were anything wrong with the maths, it would have been picked up 111 years ago.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016


Yes, it does matter where it is published. A webpage is not recognised in the field of science as a legitimate outlet. Ergo, it does not exist. And you keep forgetting that SR/ GR has been validated, experimentally and observationally. So you still have nothing. Literally.

And how many of the world's leading physicists and mathematicians have been through that paper with a fine toothed comb in 111 years? And you reckon some anonymous person has seen something that they have all missed? Sorry, no chance. If there were anything wrong with the maths, it would have been picked up 111 years ago.

The argument is what what matters. The argument is what serious science considers, independent of where it has appeared. Besides, in science there's always someone who's first, even after 111 years.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2016
F = ma and F = beta^3ma are two different laws, which Einstein derives for one and the same body in one and the same system to be valid simultaneously. This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.
Don't you mean gamma (γ) instead of beta (β)? Can you not see that when v → 0 the Lorentz factor γ → 1 and the relativistic equation reduces to the classical Newtonian equation? Your assessment is physically, scientifically, and mathematically erroneous according to logic, invariance, and every relevant experiment ever performed (for example, muons created from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere are detected at ground level when, according to your assessment [that relativity is wrong], they should have decayed long before traveling that far).
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.


And for the last time, until you put your 'argument' to the scientific test, you DON'T have one. Get it?
Anonymous webpages, youtube videos, and posting on a science news website count for jack ****.
You have proved zero. You are trying to overturn over a century of well understood and accepted science by the aforementioned, well known, pseudoscience tactics. It cuts no ice with scientists. Do you think they are going to come on here and see this?????
Publish it or go away.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
Don't you mean gamma (γ) instead of beta (β)? Can you not see that when v → 0 the Lorentz factor γ → 1 and the relativistic equation reduces to the classical Newtonian equation? Your assessment is physically, scientifically, and mathematically erroneous according to logic, invariance, and every relevant experiment ever performed (for example, muons created from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere are detected at ground level when, according to your assessment [that relativity is wrong], they should have decayed long before traveling that far).


He's prattling on about section 10 of this paper: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf

Can't see the problem myself, but it is well outside my area of expertise. Then again, I'm not the one trying to overturn the scientific establishment!
eric96
3 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
It's pretty clear that our universe is four dimensions (3D + time).
After all, special relativity has been thoroughly tested.
So it possible our universe came from a 4D black hole.
If that's the case that would explain the distribution of matter as seen in the microwave background. It would also suggest that the acceleration of the universe is constant as it appears to be.

On a more interesting note, I like to think of a dimensional as a resolution since it follows a mathematic notion.
1D: 10
2D: 100
3D: 1000
4D: 10000

That if all the dimensions are spacial.
If the universe is expanding because of time, time would spacial.
It would effectively mean we could only observe 10% of the universe, but the number would be even smaller since we can't even detect the edge of this 10%.

hawkingsbrother
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
The argument matters, not where and who put it forth
@Omnibus101
wrong
source matters a great deal - scientists don't read random web-pages because there is no means or way to remove pseudoscience from known science

when you produce an argument from any site (even a dot.org) that can't be found in a peer reviewed journal, then the first argument should be: why isn't this in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact on the subject matter

source is vital - you may put forth an argument but it aint science unless it's able to be tested, validated and passes peer review

it really is simple to do that as well - all it takes is submission to a journal and publication

the reason most pseudoscience advocates don't do this is because there is overwhelming evidence refuting their argument that they simply don't know about because they didn't bother to study the topic
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016


It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.


And for the last time, until you put your 'argument' to the scientific test, you DON'T have one. Get it?
Anonymous webpages, youtube videos, and posting on a science news website count for jack ****.
You have proved zero. You are trying to overturn over a century of well understood and accepted science by the aforementioned, well known, pseudoscience tactics. It cuts no ice with scientists. Do you think they are going to come on here and see this?????
Publish it or go away.


The true ultimatum is this -- because of the argument in timeisabsolute.org, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics. The argument in timeisabsolute.org overturns over a century of something that was thought well understood and erroneously accepted as science. An argument such as the one shoen is the argument that really cuts the mustard with the true scientists.
gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.

@OB: the universe is not an absolute. it varies.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
Can anybody find a post by Omnibus that hasn't mentioned thisisabsolutebollocks.org, or whatever it's called? Seems like he's using phys.org as a vehicle to promote his crank website. If there isn't a rule against that, then there ought to be.
Manfred Particleboard
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
Wow , this Omnicrank is spamming with the best of them. Ok, grab a handful of mercury and explain why it's liquid at room temperature?

https://www.chemi....article

or does your explanation go something like this:

https://www.youtu...6CBEJRs.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


If you can do that, do it. You can't unfortunately. Indeed, it takes just one web page to bring down the whole fallacy called Einstein's theory.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
We should simply turnover the rest of the Commentary to Jonesy & Omni. I'll check back from time to time for some good chuckles.........
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


If you can do that, do it. You can't unfortunately. Indeed, it takes just one web page to bring down the whole fallacy called Einstein's theory.


Want a bet on that? Come back here on 26/11/2021, and I'll bet you that absolutely nothing has changed, despite your spam. Like I said, it's pathetic and transparent.
Ask the EU acolytes - their website is much bigger than yours, and they've done shed loads of videos. If there was a top 40 for pseudoscience video views, they'd probably be top of the charts! Still aren't taken the least bit seriously though, and they've been doing it for years.
You are wasting your time.
Manfred Particleboard
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
I was only enabling the kooks by actually going to their site, and expecting a train wreck, I found one. So what this kook has done is find a set of equations in Einsteins equations that suggest that a physical body must simultaneously obey two different laws. And this, they rely on as evidence of a contradiction by Einstein to invalidate the theory.

So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016

Want a bet on that? Come back here on 26/11/2021, and I'll bet you that absolutely nothing has changed, despite your spam. Like I said, it's pathetic and transparent.
Ask the EU acolytes - their website is much bigger than yours, and they've done shed loads of videos. If there was a top 40 for pseudoscience video views, they'd probably be top of the charts! Still aren't taken the least bit seriously though, and they've been doing it for years.
You are wasting your time.


I don't know about 26/11/2016, however, around 12/04/2016 the National Academy of Sciences is expected to come up with an answer to the kind invitation with a respectful request to advise the nation that Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics due to exactly this argument, which I quoted so many times in this exchange. And, rest assured, said invitation will not end up on 12/04/2016. The expected resistance will be met with further determination for said menace to be removed.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
I was only enabling the kooks by actually going to their site, and expecting a train wreck, I found one. So what this kook has done is find a set of equations in Einsteins equations that suggest that a physical body must simultaneously obey two different laws. And this, they rely on as evidence of a contradiction by Einstein to invalidate the theory.

So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.


This is all it takes to bring the whole Einstein's relativity down. I'm not to blame for that. Einstein is to blame for putting forth such lame ``theory''.
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
So tell me; does this invalidate the two frame system which underpins relativity and if so, how? Can you explain how this invalidates relativity with either mathematics or a simpler analogy. That is to say, can you communicate something to us? You can't, and you will continue to rant about the end of a theory without explaining anything.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2016
So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.


That's exactly what it is. See section 10 of the paper I linked earlier: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf

A moving frame and a stationary frame.That is the bit that is cut and pasted, albeit in German. The link above is the whole paper in English.
Nothing to see here. Will drag in a few cranks, but so does EU, Crothers, Robitaille etc. No bugger takes them seriously either!
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
You, both, go to the site and you'll find answers to your questions. You can't just talk without an effort to understand what's there.
Manfred Particleboard
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Manfred Particleboard
3 / 5 (10) Nov 26, 2016
I went to the site, immediately understood that the equation that contain a beta function must be the alternate space time frame that is the very premise of SR. And yet you somehow could not understand this very simple and preliminary step in the building of the theory, yet focused on the fact that one equation contains a beta function and therefore concluded (erroneously!) it must be a contradiction because the same laws of motion are described by both. I've shot your site so full of holes you can now drain spaghetti with it.

Prove me wrong!
Azrael
3 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Read the forum rules, you troll:

Do not include links in signatures or links to irrelevant materials: Comments that contain irrelevant links (including links in signatures) will be deleted. Linking to obviously "crackpot" sites is prohibited.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
I went to the site, immediately understood that the equation that contain a beta function must be the alternate space time frame that is the very premise of SR. And yet you somehow could not understand this very simple and preliminary step in the building of the theory, yet focused on the fact that one equation contains a beta function and therefore concluded (erroneously!) it must be a contradiction because the same laws of motion are described by both. I've shot your site so full of holes you can now drain spaghetti with it.

Prove me wrong!


No, the equation containing the beta function is in the same system K for the same body for which the equation without the beta function is valid. That is, one and the same body, in one and the same system K is ridiculously maintained to obey two completely different laws of motion at the same time.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
Axiom: There exist a set of diametrical spherical fields, i.e. charge, apparently never created or destroyed. The fields are continuous from its center to infinity. They may occupy the same point at the same time given conditions that obey Coulomb. The field of each point is updated at the speed of light relative to its center. The fields are transparent and are all that exist! All we can see is this response. The speed of light, i.e. wavelength*frequency is a spatial constant and obeys measurement; but does represent the speed of the Front, i.e. error in the definition of the Poynting Vector, for the wave front has the Poynting Vector due to the center of the field and updated at that rate, only, relative to that center. Therefore the speed of light is better defined as the emitted wavelength divided by the measured period, i.e. priori information.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
The atom is not held together by Gluons. The neutron is composed of only 1 set of DSFs. It may be expressed as a neutron or a hydrogen atom or spin of 1 SF, with a display we call a neutrino. But assume a He nucleus, 2p, 2n is actually 4p, 4e and you may compute the summation of the coulomb forces to equal a stationary nucleus or play with whatever change of state you wish, 8 equations, 8 unknowns, in 3D, maybe design graphics for 4D, i.e. video.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
Note: Empty space is only conceptual, i.e. no pressure, tautology!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
You may do experiments with and without logic. The experiment without logic is foolish!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
See the light!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2016
No, the equation containing the beta function is in the same system K for the same body for which the equation without the beta function is valid.

No, it isn't. To quote the man himself (in the English version):

"From the above assumption, in combination with the principle of relativity, it is clear that in the immediately ensuing time (for small values of t) the electron, viewed from the system k, moves in accordance with the equations....." And thence follows the equations without the beta function.
And then:

"With the help of these equations we transform the above equations of motion from system k to system K, and obtain......."
And thence follows the equation including the beta function.

System k is the moving system, system K is the stationary system.
The moving electron in system K is being viewed from system k.
I would seriously suggest that you get somebody with a thorough understanding of the theory to go through it with you. If I can see it, anybody can.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
``System k is the moving system, system K is the stationary system.
The moving electron in system K is being viewed from system k.
I would seriously suggest that you get somebody with a thorough understanding of the theory to go through it with you. If I can see it, anybody can.''

You should refrain from suggesting anything because you yourself don't understand the matter at hand.

To really understand what is going on you must understand the first postulate. The first postulate expresses the absolute trivial truth that uniform rectilinear motion is akin to rest. Once you understand that, then you'll see why the equation in K remains unchanged in k and vice versa. The moving electron (system k, that is) is viewed from K and the only presentation of the law is F = ma in K and F' = ma' in k. That's all. Any further gibberish, as is done in §10, leads to internal contradiction, as explained in the link. This further gibberish is a crucial error of magnificent proportions.
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
Besides, one can clearly see, as a detail, that the claim that Einstein's relativity can derive E = mc² is one big, fat lie. Not only can Einstein's relativity not derive E = mc² but that mass-energy relationship is trivially present in classical physics. For instance, Ampere's law is one classic expression of the mass-energy relationship E = mc².
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
Rubbish. Simple as that. You obviously haven't a clue what is going on here. Like I said, write your nonsense up, and present it to a respectable peer reviewed journal, if you want to make a fool of yourself.
Before you do that, to try to understand what section 10 is ACTUALLY saying, look at the thought experiment in this link (aptly, it is from 'Einstein's Special Relativity for Dummies'!):
http://www.dummie...ativity/

THAT is what is being described in section 10.

And then you can see the experimental verification in this article:
https://en.wikipe...lativity
And a shed load of references to it here: http://www.edu-ob...nts.html
Which includes links to relativistic effects on mass, among many other confirmations.

Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
Like I said, you have no clue and therefore should not express opinions but should try to learn something instead. There can be no relativistic effects whatsoever because Einstein's relativity is obviously invalid. Did you try to understand what I explained or you'll continue with the insults and with your embarrassing incompetence?
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
From your link: First postulate, called also the principle of relativity: ``The principle of relativity: The laws of physics don't change, even for objects moving in inertial (constant speed) frames of reference.'' Did you read that? If you did read it and made an effort to understand it, then you'd know that F' = ma' is the only way you can write in k, the law F = ma written in K and vice versa. No betas no nothing. Anything more than that brings in internal contradiction, which is a dramatic flaw with far-reaching consequences. Is that so difficult to understand?
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
Constancy of the speed of light is completely irrelevant for the validity of Einstein's relativity and those fellows proposing ``theories'' and whatnot to test it are only wasting time, money and effort to test something so obviously flawed.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2016
He's prattling on about section 10 of this paper: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf
Ah, Einstein called it "Beta" – it's what is better known as the Lorentz factor (and it was widely known before 1905). It arises when doing the maths of Lorentz transformations, a special type of coordinate transformation – going from one reference frame to a different one which is moving at a different velocity than the first one (from one "inertial" frame of reference to another). The irony is that Lorentz invariance allows different observers to agree on fundamental qualities like conservation of energy, momentum, and rest mass despite having differing measurements of quantities like elapsed time, length contractions, and relativistic mass. Omnotibus101 somehow sees different laws from related expressions when one of the postulates of SR is the laws are the same in all frames.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
So write your paper, and post a link to it when it's done. So we can all have a laugh. I'm done with it. No point arguing with someone who thinks they have proved Einstein wrong (whilst totally misunderstanding what he's saying), and goes about it by creating an anonymous webpage, and continually spamming it on a science news comments section!
Like I've said - pathetic.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
@Protoplazmix: Involving Lorentz transformations gets Einstein's ``theory'' into internal contradictions because they change the law in K, a law which must stay unchanged in K. Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish. All that is explained in the link I gave.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
It arises when doing the maths of Lorentz transformations, a special type of coordinate transformation – going from one reference frame to a different one which is moving at a different velocity than the first one (from one "inertial" frame of reference to another). The irony is that Lorentz invariance allows different observers to agree on fundamental qualities like conservation of energy, momentum, and rest mass despite having differing measurements of quantities like elapsed time, length contractions, and relativistic mass. Omnotibus101 somehow sees different laws from related expressions when one of the postulates of SR is the laws are the same in all frames.


Indeed. Like I've said, he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described. Still, let him go ahead if it makes him feel better. It'll end in either total ridicule, or a Nobel Prize! I know what my money is on. Seen too many of these type of cranks over the years. Internet has made it worse!
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
So write your paper, and post a link to it when it's done. So we can all have a laugh. I'm done with it. No point arguing with someone who thinks they have proved Einstein wrong (whilst totally misunderstanding what he's saying), and goes about it by creating an anonymous webpage, and continually spamming it on a science news comments section!
Like I've said - pathetic.


Obviously, you like to embarrass yourself and waste bandwidth by exposing your incompetence.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
How does one measure or even contemplate the density of an illusion? What you see in a star-field, is NOT there. It is what WAS there. And what you see, was NOT all there at the SAME TIME. Two stars at two different times do not effect one another.

99% of astronomy is very expensive crap. All we get is pretty pictures.

Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
@jonesdave: ``he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described.''

Not at all. You haven't proved that. The only thing you've proved is that you are incompetent and cannot engage in a simple scientific discussion (because of your incompetence) and are trying to get away with insults, sidetracking and doxxing. That won't work. I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
@jonesdave: ``he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described.''

Not at all. You haven't proved that. The only thing you've proved is that you are incompetent and cannot engage in a simple scientific discussion (because of your incompetence) and are trying to get away with insults, sidetracking and doxxing. That won't work. I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail.


Lol. Read this: http://cognitiona...ulations

Don't forget to get back to us when you've written that paper. I would seriously suggest running it by a physics forum first though. Try Cosmoquest's 'Against the Mainstream' thread, or International Skeptics Forum. They'd love you!
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2016
I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail
@omni
aggressive incompetence is linking to a web-site for a claim that supposedly overturns one of the most successful theories in history

essentially you've made a claim
that claim does not have evidence except your insistence that it's true
there is no peer review
there is no evidence
there is only your claim

until you submit a peer reviewed paper that makes a point this is nothing more than your belief - that's it

and even if it passes peer review it's not going to overturn anything until it is validated through second non-affiliated parties

you haven't passed the lowest step for a scientific pronouncement but you're claiming it's physics altering - that is the very definition of pseudoscience and "aggressive incompetence"
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
How does one, with a theory that contains mass, mass is undefined, it's only a constant of measurement, use mass as causal? Constants of measurement do not infer that the constant is causal for what you are trying to measure. Mass is portional to the number of charge pairs within the mass, although we are close, gravity with respect to the fundamental has never been defined! I argue the argument is mute, and that we do not even have fundamental global constants based upon logic, nor is there any theory based upon a set of defined axioms.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2016
The atom is not held together by Gluons. The neutron is composed of only 1 set of DSFs. It may be expressed as a neutron or a hydrogen atom or spin of 1 SF, with a display we call a neutrino. But assume a He nucleus, 2p, 2n is actually 4p, 4e and you may compute the summation of the coulomb forces to equal a stationary nucleus or play with whatever change of state you wish, 8 equations, 8 unknowns, in 3D, maybe design graphics for 4D, i.e. video.

catch error 2e i.e. 6eq 6 unknowns, orbiters?
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Aggressive incompetence is not to address the issue but to sidetrack it, as you do, by just saying that there is no evidence, while there is evidence. The evidence is that in §10 F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. Einstein's had ignored that obvious requirement of the I postulate and has mistakenly applied the Lorentz transformations, which has lead to an internal contradiction. Aggressive incompetence is to ignore this evidence and insist that there is no evidence. I assure you that if you and I appear before a learned audience you will not be able to sustain your claim that I'm not providing evidence. Be less arrogant and respect science.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2016
as you do, by just saying that there is no evidence, while there is evidence
@omni
if there was evidence you would be able to link a peer reviewed journal and not your personal website filled with your delusional beliefs
Aggressive incompetence is to ignore this evidence and insist that there is no evidence
i can't ignore something that doesn't exist
you still haven't linked any actual science - just your claims
I assure you that if you and I appear before a learned audience you will not be able to sustain your claim that I'm not providing evidence
i'll take that bet: where do you want to meet?
loser pays travel expenses, ok?
Be less arrogant and respect science
the only arrogance displayed here is your own
you made a claim - you have yet to prove your claim

proof = a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal

until then, try scoring yourself here: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
arcmetal
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

"Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space" Nov 1969.

In which the abstract says: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c".

I've noticed that the distances between here and Venus are greater than the distances in any land based lab, and maybe that is why the results in his paper are the way they are.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2016
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.


A) Because he was wrong

B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.

http://www.tandfo...08065415
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish
Then wear glasses. Omcrockeribus101, not even if your website was as yoooge as fox news would you be able to pass such anti-science used horse feed off as anything useful other than maybe to students of the social sciences specializing in readjustment of maladjusted minds.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, peer-review is absolutely not a requirement, especially when it concerns the validity of a obviously correct argument, as the one I've presented. Requiring peer-review is only a smoke screen for your incompetence. Let alone the clear impossibility for a counterarguments. As for meeting you, I don't need to pay your expenses if I call you in a court of law and believe me, you will be the loser in a court of law on the issues at hand. So, be more careful when you resort to attacks rather than engage in a productive discussion from which you may learn something.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@Protoplasmix, I already warned @Captain Stumpy and now I'm warning you. Don't resort to insults but try to carry out a normal scientific exchange. Enough is enough. I repeat, and you should try to understand it, if this exchange is to be productive -- Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish because the first set of equations shows the only way, by applying the I postulate, the law can be presented in system K and in system k. After the second set of equations Einstein resorts to Lorentz transformations for presenting the law in K, which changes the law and that's in conflict with the I postulate (The Principle of Relativity). This sole error brings down the whole edifice built around Einstein's relativity, such as, cosmology, string theories, black holes, big bang and whatnot.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
peer-review is absolutely not a requirement
@omni
spoken like a true pseudoscience advocate
yes, it is a requirement because it is the first step in the prevention of pseudoscience
Don't resort to insults but try to carry out a normal scientific exchange
1- i've not resorted to insults - i've pointed out you have no evidence

2- when discussing science and making a point about "proof" or "evidence", especially when making a claim that overturns a known established validated truth, one must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

you have not brought any evidence except for your personal claim that something you believe is true

that in and of itself is like arguing that because i own a garage, surely i can see that your ability to stand in it would make you a toyota

therefore your insistence that your claim is true without evidence and validation is far, far more insulting and not even science

Enough is enough
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@omni cont'd
I repeat
don't repeat
repetition doesn't make anything more true, nor is it validation of your claim
period
Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish because
and everything you wrote past this point is complete gibberish because you cannot prove it

you have absolutely no evidence
none whatsoever, other than your claim that it's true
if relativity wasn't accepted until the evidence proved it correct, then the same thing applies to your argument
This sole error brings down the whole edifice
or so you claim
making a claim don't make it true

you claim it brings down relativity but you can't prove it

that is my whole point

that will remain my point until you can prove, with validation, that it does, in which time i will be forced to accept the evidence

until then - it's all bluster and bullsh*t drawing flies and not scientists

& that isn't an insult - it's reality
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Enough is enough, indeed. The evidence is that in §10 F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. Einstein had ignored that obvious requirement of the I postulate and has mistakenly applied the Lorentz transformations, which has lead to an internal contradiction requiring rejection of his ``theory''. This is extraordinary evidence of immense significance. It's right in your face. Lying that there's no evidence doesn't erase the evidence. Don't lie.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
The evidence is that in §10
repeating yourself isn't going to suddenly make it more true - or didn't you get that when i said
repetition doesn't make anything more true, nor is it validation of your claim
if you can't prove it with evidence, you're making a claim

at best, this claim is an "untested claim" (read this: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

considering that the evidence of relativity directly refutes your claim, then one can consider your claim a "false claim", otherwise known as a lie

my point: until you can actually prove your point with evidence and not simply your reiteration of past statements, then it is not anything other than a claim

It's right in your face
Lying that there's evidence doesn't erase the fact that you haven't brought evidence
Don't lie
prove

get it yet?
Omnibus101
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, Don't lie. It is a direct evidence, seen immediately in §10, that F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. This is what the I postulate requires. My personal opinion has nothing to do with it. This actually proves my point, which you have no way to challenge but instead are resorting to insults. Don't insult your opponent and don't lie.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
lets make this even simpler, because apparently you can't comprehend the basics

relativity isn't true because of the math, or because Einstein said it
it is true because of the following:

it was hypothesized, and then a method was designed to not only test it but also falsify it, to insure that we knew how to determine it's accuracy

it was then tested (this is the evidence of which i speak) making it a point of interest

then it was re-tested various ways by non-related parties to insure accuracy and validated

this validation lead to further hypothesizing and designs for testing and falsification which in turn lead to more validation

it is still tested

.

what you have done is this:

you made a claim
not a hypothesis, nor a means to test it, and especially not a means to falsify it
just a claim

that's it

a claim

nothing more

https://en.wikipe...cess.svg
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
Don't lie. It is a direct evidence, seen immediately
@omni
no, it isnt
you made a claim

that's it
My personal opinion has nothing to do with it
then by all means, show the evidence
show the testing that was done to prove your ASSumptions correct
show the falsification requirements
show the validated results
(this is colloquially known as "evidence")
This actually proves my point
no, it doesn't
which you have no way to challenge
actually i do: read my last post and then this link - https://en.wikipe...evidence

Don't insult your opponent
you are insulting me with claims and no evidence
I am simply stating the facts: you have no evidence other than your claims

ask Benni - i can be far more insulting if i try
don't lie
there isn't a single lie above, nor can you prove it with any evidence at all

repeating your lie doesn't make it more true

show me the EVIDENCE
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: What I've done is, I've proved (not just claimed but proved) unequivocally that Einstein's relativity is internally contradictory and therefore must be rejected in its entirety.

I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's nothing to test in Einstein's relativity because it's internally contradictory. No test will prove that 1 = 2 is true. Any test claiming to have proven such a thing is only a creation of charlatans.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
What I've done is, I've proved
nope
what you've done is: you've made a claim that you proved something
that's it
(not just claimed but proved) unequivocally ...
then you should be able to provide the exact same level of evidence that relativity has that proves it's valid, which includes:
tests
experiments
a means to falsify your hypothesis
validation

i see none of that above, only your insistent repetition of your claim that you proved something
I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt
to do this you must meet the requirements that i stated above which should include the following:
Why is relativity found to be so accurate a representation of reality, observation and testing while being (as you claim) "internally contradictory" ????

when you can provide that, you can then say: I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

until then you're doing the equivalent of pissing into a fan and calling it rain
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: So, the first thing you should do is acknowledge the obvious fact that in §10, that F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma' because this is what the I postulate requires. Once you acknowledge that obvious fact, only then you may ruminate as to whether or not it's evidence or hypothesis or something else. That must be the second stage of your education.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's nothing to test in Einstein's.....blah blah blah


Nope. You've proven nothing. You've shown that you have proven it to yourself alone. That doesn't count, especially when it is based on your lack of understanding of the material. Which it is pointless arguing about any more, because of your misunderstandings, and your belief that you are right, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
So, how are you going to prove this to the waiting world? A website won't do it (ask the EU acolytes), ranting on about it here won't do it. So what is the big plan? Take out a full page ad in the NYT, like the idiot Robitaille? That didn't do it either.
[sarcasm]The world awaits your pronouncement on this[/sarcasm]
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
So, the first thing you should do is acknowledge the obvious fact that
no, i don't have to acknowledge anything
i simply have to prove that you're argument is invalid because you can't actually explain the reasoning why relativity is found to be so accurate a representation of reality, observation and testing while being (as you claim) "internally contradictory"

i've done that - you still can't provide evidence
case closed

there is no need to go any further simply because the extent of your "evidence" is to make a claim that [x] isn't true because it is "internally contradictory"

considering the sheer volume of testing that refutes this by simply googling "relativity tests", your argument is shown to have zero merit

it is then my contention that you're making a false claim

as such, your claim, still without evidence, requires evidence that is equivalent or greater than relativity

good luck with that
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: That in §10, that F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma' because this is what the I postulate requires, is not a claim. It's a fact that cannot be questioned.

It's a fact, not just a claim, that the Lorentz transformations change the law in K, which contradicts the I postulate.

Thus, it's an undeniable fact, not a hypothesis, not a claim, that Einstein's relativity is internally contradictory.

Because these are fact, Einstein's relativity can in no way be subject to testing. My proof shows that those who claim that said ``theory'' has been ``found to be so accurate a representation of reality'' are nothing else but charlatans.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy:: This is a lie, repeated by charlatans: ``relativity is found to be so accurate a representation of reality''. 1 = 2, derived by Einstein's relativity, is not reality and will never be. No experiment can prove such a thing.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
It's a fact, not just a claim
ok, lets try this differently

are you capable of following the evidence?
yes or no

it's not rocket surgery - it's basic logic

i'll wait for an answer

just a yes or no will suffice for now... we'll take it in stages
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: ``are you capable of following the evidence?
yes or no'' Yes. The proof is in the pudding. I open the paper on §10 and I see the evidence with my own eyes. You should see it too, if you're not a charlatan.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2016
@Capt,
I'm beginning to think the best way of dealing with this bloke is simply to ignore him!!!! Getting far more attention than his nonsense deserves.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
Yes
i stopped there
this isn't about reiteration of your claim, it's about following the evidence

so you state you are capable of following the evidence - good

now, can you differentiate between types of evidence?
yes or no

No extraneous commentary is needed, just a yes or no
for a definition of types of evidence, read this link: https://en.wikipe...evidence

I'm beginning to think the best way of dealing with this bloke is simply to ignore him!!!! Getting far more attention than his nonsense deserves.
@Jones
then how can one teach the scientifically illiterate or unfamiliar how to do basic research?
... it's a good teaching tool

might have a point, though
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
Only charlatans or immoral opportunists at best, claim that there's experimental evidence validating Einstein's relativity. 1 = 2 derived by Einstein's relativity can never find experimental proof for its validity.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
Only charlatans or immoral opportunists at best
@omni
so that is a resounding NO then?

so what we have just proven is this:
you say you follow the evidence
BUT
you can't differentiate between what constitutes evidence in science and what constitutes evidence in your own delusional mind

that aint a matter of debate
You just validated that fact above
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: No, no, don't give me Wikipedia because it works against you. I want to be fair.

And, yes, I'm following strictly the evidence without jumping stages. I won't ignore §10 for the sake of listening to charlatans about their bogus experiments. That I won't do.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: I said yes twice.
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
There has never been nor can there ever be an experiment validating the internally contradictory Einstein's relativity.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
I said yes twice.
@omni
no, you didn't... i posted the reply to your answer

you state you can follow the evidence then state that you ARE following the evidence, which is different than being able to differentiate between the evidence and what constitutes reliable repeatable evidence

until you can differentiate between evidence that is circumstantial versus that which is repeatable, then there isn't a point in continuing...

can you differentiate between evidence?
yes or no

and since you won't accept wiki while not being able to articulate a sound reason, then utilise these rules as they are pretty much the same, though not as strict

https://www.law.c...ules/fre
arcmetal
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

A) Because he was wrong
B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.
http://www.tandfo...08065415


Well then, that just verifies it, science has become a religion. That's kind of sad.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: §10 provides a reliable and repeatable evidence. You may look 22 different times (that's statistically infinite times) at §10 and every single time you will see the internal contradiction. This is the purest, ultimate evidence of all evidences.

It is not circumstantial, it is direct evidence, you can see with your own eyes on the face of it as many times as you wish. It exactly abides by the rules in your link.
winthrom
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
I think that an interesting question is: "where is all the energy given off by all the radiant stars in all the galaxies?" How is it that we can see the background energy of the big bang and yet cannot see all the radiant energy of all those stars for 13.4 billion years? Einstein's theories are very good for relative velocities in gravitational circumstances within a galactic body, but do not address what goes on between galaxies. There is an assumption that conditions outside of galaxies are the same as inside. This has proven incorrect if dark energy and dark matter are real, so perhaps new science awaits us.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
On the other hand, you're not in a position to show me directly even one single experiment on the matter, to have some fun laughing at the desperate attempts of the charlatans to massage data.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
This is the purest, ultimate evidence of all evidences
@omni
and again, you have just proven that you are incapable of differentiating between what constituted evidence and what constitutes claims of evidence

that aint a matter of debate
You just validated that fact above
twice!
It is not circumstantial
says you and you alone

where is the prediction, experiments, testing, falsification and validation of your claims?
there are absolutely zero

the only thing you've posted above is your claims
then a link to a web site that regurgitates your claims

IOW - you have provided absolutely no objective. repeatable evidence that can be validated so that others may actually check the facts

meanwhile, relativity: https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

Hmm... even if i were scientifically and math challenged i would have to ask why you can't refute those studies...
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@winthrom: Einstein's relativity is not only not good but it's not worth even the paper it's printed on.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@omni cont'd
On the other hand, you're not in a position to show me directly even one single experiment on the matter
on the matter of relativity?
really?
http://journals.a....64.1697

http://www.nature...997.html

http://articles.a...34L.219R

http://journals.a...t.13.789

those four links are to experiments
my last google scholar link has plenty more to choose from
so that makes me able to provide, just in this post, four experiments to your zero

evidence trumps claims
therefore my evidence trumps your claims of "internally contradictory"

i can prove relativity correct, you only claim it is not
therefore the argument is in your court and you must prove the evidence that i have wrong with equivalent or greater evidence

hence your epic failure above
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
Einstein's relativity is not only not good but it's not worth even the paper it's printed on
if you could actually prove this you would be the greatest scientist in history

problem is: you don't know WTF evidence really is!
you think that making a claim and repeating it makes you factually correct
science doesn't work like that, and i am headed out for a while so i can't continue to point out that you're illiterate and incapable of reading even basic definitions

or maybe you're just ignoring the basic definitions because that would immediately prove you're lying about having evidence?

you go ahead and continue posting - you will always be considered just another idiot crank posting pseudoscience until you can differentiate between evidence and actually provide a means to: predict, falsify, test, experiment, and validate your claim

thanks for demonstrating my points above so clearly - this is a helpful teaching tool
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: That's a lie: ``you have provided absolutely no objective. repeatable evidence that can be validated so that others may actually check the facts''

Prediction, experiments, testing, falsification and validation of the fact that Einstein's relativity is internally contradictory are contained in the tangible §10 and not in bogus manipulations of charlatans which you can never produce tangibly but have to rely on their charlatans' reports. By seeing the fact that Einstein's relativity derives that 1 = 2 I predict that there can be no experiment to validate such a stupidity. Therefore, Einstein's relativity falsifies itself. Plain and simple.

Others can check at once the facts I discovered.

And, don't tell me that I can't refute the bogus studies of the charlatans because I can. No claimed experiment can ever prove the validity of 1 = 2.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: The evidence I'm presenting is absolutely factually correct, which can be verified by anyone at any moment. Don't lie that it isn't so.

Besides, all the quotes you've provided (and can never prove their factual correctness because there's no such) are from charlatans or unscrupulous opportunists at best. All of this must go into the heap of history.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@omni
That's a lie
no, it isn't
and you can't prove it's a lie until you can prove relativity false
and to do that you have to provide evidence
evidence means: experiments that not only validate your claim but falsify relativity
Others can check at once the facts I discovered
others can also look for smurfs
there is a far better chance of finding smurfs than finding your "evidence" above
why?
because you've provided only claims - not evidence
And, don't tell me that I can't refute the bogus studies of the charlatans because I can
then i await those experiments in the future SCI-MAG journal or similar physics equivalent

until then - you made a claim
no evidence
no different than any other pseudoscience poster out there

have fun with that proof, by the way
maybe you can name it after yourself (so long as expletives are common by that time, anyway)

Thanks for proving my points
really gotta run though
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

A) Because he was wrong
B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.
http://www.tandfo...08065415


Well then, that just verifies it, science has become a religion. That's kind of sad.


Lol. Says a believer in a non-existent ether that was shown not to exist over a hundred years ago. Now, that sounds like a faith based belief to me.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
My argument is extremely powerful because it's tangible and anyone at any time can verify its truthfulness, while the only thing you can say about the quoted papers, to justify their veracity, is that they are published in a peer-reviewed journals.

However, here's the catch. Besides the fact that peer-review is absolutely no guarantee for the veracity of any claims, let alone of obviously false claims, Einstein's own 1905 paper has been published without peer-review. So, only on account of this you must dismiss it. Why don't you?
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Don't lie that I have not provided direct evidence. I have. You're lying and that doesn't make you a winner in this exchange. Quite the contrary.

Internally contradictory ``theory'', which I proved it to be unequivocally, can never be the subject of experimental verification. It fails prior to setting up experiments.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: I present direct evidence, while yours is hearsay, based on claims of charlatans or confused parties, at best.
Shabs42
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
I'll never understand why you all spend so much time arguing with the crazies. They're never going to provide evidence of their wacky theories, and they're never going to change their mind. Make one post pointing out why he's wrong, let him reply a few times and get bored and everyone can discuss the real science like adults.
meerling
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
That absolute time stuff is total crackpot trumpery.

We've already proven that time is variable depending on such conditions as gravity and velocity, and yes, the GPS satellites were built to take that into account.

Yes, that does mean they've put synchronized atomic clocks in lots of strange places over the many decades they've tested it, and it conforms completely with the predictions of relativity within the accepted margins of error for the experiments.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
@Shabs42: ``Make one post pointing out why he's wrong''. They can't. I'm categorically right.

@meerling: Time-dilation contradicts absolute truths. Therefore, it's impossible to prove: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM Anyone who claims to have proven such an impossible thing is a charlatan or a confused individual, at best.
Manfred Particleboard
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2016
Well, i'm back after doing something constructive and the nut is still asserting ' I'm right because I'm right, which proves me right, and proves you all wrong!'. Not a single example of falsifying the empirical evidence or offering an alternate explanation of why our satellites seem to keep using this obviously unnecessary mathematical solution which uncannily increases their precision.

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but, really, it's one step away from letting them get away with debasing science and the return of the dark ages...wait?...someone voted in Trump...

physman
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
Jeeeeeeez, 240 comments about bullshit and bickering!

The way I see it, either this experiement would further solidify GR and inflation or we would open the game to a whole host of new ideas. Both of which are fantastic news.

Kudos scientists and your sciencey ways.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Manfred Particleboard: Don't insult, Manfred. You're the one deserving insults but I'm showing civility and am not stooping to your level.

And don't lie:

``Not a single example of falsifying the empirical evidence'': ``Theory'' derives that 1 = 2. The empirical evidence shows that such equality can never be. Reject ``theory''.

``offering an alternate explanation of why our satellites seem to keep using this obviously unnecessary mathematical solution which uncannily increases their precision.'' Alternate and correct explanation: Finite velocities of signals are used for corrections in GPS, not time-dilation. Time-dilation violates absolute truths: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM

I should not feed the trolls but others may get confused by the lies spread by the likes of you.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@Omnibus101
I know you will not listen, but others may be interested.

Out of pure curiousity I have had a look at the pseudoscience link that Omnibus101 havs been harping on about. Unfortunately I can only find the paper it refers to in the original German or very poorly translated English. I have to say it is a little confusing, but the I think I can see what has caused the problem. The first equation that is highlighted in the pseudoscience link is for an "electron" that is at rest, while the final one is for an electron moving with velocity v. It therefore makes no sense to equate them as the link tries to do. In other words, the claim that Einstein "proves 1=2" is false. Typical, of course, for such a pseudoscience site.

If ANYONE else is interested, although I expect not, the English translation can be found at: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Benni
Hi Reg, I guess I might quibble with you just a wee bit on the "expansion of matter" as the ONLY measurement of TIME. TIME passage occurs with ANY MOVEMENT of matter, I don't see why there needs to ONLY be EXPANSION.

Benni, ALL matter expands ALL the time, including you. the observer. Consequently, you do not observe that expansion, only its side effects (e.g. "gravity"). Movement is a facet of expansion, any movement relative to an observer is at the expense of uniform expansion, thus reducing time.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@Omnibus101
CORRECTION: You CAN equate the first and last equations if you put v=0. I.e. beta=1.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
Here's a Strumpy post above that caused me much hilarity;-
@Jones
then how can one teach the scientifically illiterate or unfamiliar how to do basic research?
... it's a good teaching tool

Imagine, a total moron like Strumpy as a teacher! He has a brain smaller than a chimpanzee, cannot follow the simplest logic, thinks that arguments can be refuted by repeated insults, and when losing an argument simply stops posting rather than admitting defeat because he lacks the moral fibre of a rat. See http://phys.org/n...tor.html
hawkingsbrother
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
My argument is extremely powerful because it's tangible
@omniTROLL
a toyota is tangible
your argument is not because has no evidence
Einstein's own 1905 paper has been published without peer-review. So, only on account of this you must dismiss it. Why don't you?
you can't dismiss the experimental evidence that followed and validated it
I have. You're lying and that doesn't make you a winner in this exchange
1- you have not - you've provided a claim and a claim of evidence
2- I've not lied
3- your validation of my points make me factual and you delusional
pretty much making you just another crank like reg mundy saying "look at me and how smart i am because i can say einstein is wrong without any evidence at all whatsoever"
I present direct evidence
you present a claim based upon your opinion which is, in turn, based upon your interpretation of relativity

there is a difference

see: RNP above
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@regTROLL the abject failure who can't pass peer review
and when losing an argument simply stops posting
so wait... you simply state that "The Situation Of Gravity" is "free on Kindle" and that somehow validates your claims?

you still think the argument of "read my book" is somehow proof?

ROTFLMFAO

or were you talking about the drivel you posted in the paragraphs?

... here is the problem with that: like omnitroll, you have absolutely no evidence other than your claims that you're correct

more to the point - your argument is proven false here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you still can't comprehend that basic fact, can you?
not one bit of your drivel explains what keeps the path of the orbit, what causes tides or what causes the observed motion of the stars... gravity not only explains it, it also has far more evidence for it than just "read my book"
LMFAO

Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@RNP: Wrong. The first eq. is for an electron at rest w/ K, while the second eq. is for an electron at rest w/ k. The 1 = 2 comes from a third, later derivation of an eq. for the same electron at rest w/ K, differing from the first eq. for the same electron at rest w. K. This is clear pseudoscience, whose experimental testing is impossible and must be removed from physics.

@@omniTROLL: Yes, you must dismiss purported evidence claiming that 1 = 2 is true. What I present is a fact, seen directly in §10, and not my opinion.

@Captain Stumpy: I have the ultimate evidence: internal contradiction btw derived equations in §10 for one body in one system. The paper you cite deserves the same response -- it's nonsense, as the ``theory'' it tries to justify. It's a promotion by charlatans.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@Omnibus101
@RNP: Wrong. The first eq. is for an electron at rest w/ K, while the second eq. is for an electron at rest w/ k.


Yes, but k is moving wrt K.

Look at the paper again (try the English translation). You will see that the first set of equations are clearly stated to be for when "...the electron is at rest......"

While the second and third are preceded by the words:
".....let the velocity of the electron at a given epoch be
v....."

This v is of course wrt the K frame. Both sets of equations are therefore for the same frame, but one for an electron at rest, the other for one with velocity v.

You should also realize that for a body at rest in K beta=1, in which case the two equations are identical. This is all obvious to anyone that cares to look at it objectively, therefore I am not going to explain it to you again.

Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@RNP: Yes, but k is not moving wrt k. Do you get it? Eq. in k is written for electron at rest wrt k, as is the eq. written for electron at rest wrt K.

``but one for an electron at rest, the other for one with velocity v.'' Not so, election in k is at rest with k. Again, first set of eq. is for electron at rest wrt K, while second set of eq. is for an electron at rest wrt k. Velocity v is absolutely irrelevant. k moves wrt K also when first and second set of eqns. are written.

Do you now understand why you shouldn't even mention the fact that that at v = 0 beta = 1? That's because k and K are in all instances moving at v =/= 0 wrt each other. Always.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
This is all obvious to anyone that cares to look at it objectively, therefore I am not going to explain it to you again.
The inconsistency in his complaint alludes to his true intent - how did he make it all the way to § 10 when the misperceived "gibberish" in the methodology was exemplified throughout all the preceding sections? Trollololol....
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@Omnibus101
@RNP: Yes, but k is not moving wrt k. Do you get it?


WTF!!!! Of course I get it! However, you would not have made such a silly, tautological statement if YOU did!

Eq. in k is written for electron at rest wrt k....


This is another expression of the same tautological statement. The "Eq. in k", as you put it, is for the electron at rest wrt k BY DEFINITION. What you seem unable to grasp what these equations mean, let alone understand that they are all expressed wrt the K frame.

This really IS the last time I am going to respond to your nonsense.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2016
Uh, Oh.......RNP has now joined the circus along with Stumpo who thinks just like he does. The circus troup will be complete when the guy who has boasted about having taking a "Thermodynamics For Beginners" course in grad school finally shows up to prove how little he too knows about SR or GR......Shavera, the Stumpo/Rguy brigade needs your infinite wisdom.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Protoplasmix: That's correct. The bogus Einstein's relativity fails as early as §1 and §2. One can shoot down the ``theory'' right there. One can shoot down said travesty called ``theory'' at every step of the way, at every following paragraph. I've chosen §10 because it offers the shortest way to unequivocally prove the falsity of Einstein's relativity.

@RNP: Let me put it again this way -- v is not zero for all the three sets of eq. at the beginning of §10. Therefore, your suggestion to consider v = 0 is unacceptable. Do you get that?
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Benni
Have you read and understood the paper of Einstien under discussion? If you have, then where is your input? If you have not not, what gives you the right to comment? Do you have NOTHING scientific to contribute?

If you have nothing to contribute but personal comments then your posts are worthless.
Omnibus101
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@Benni: At least @RNC is trying to think and to come up with some scientific objections. His objections are incorrect but he should be commended for at least trying.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2016
This is another expression of the same tautological statement. The "Eq. in k", as you put it, is for the electron at rest wrt k BY DEFINITION. What you seem unable to grasp what these equations mean, let alone understand that they are all expressed wrt the K frame.

This really IS the last time I am going to respond to your nonsense.


I explained that to the idiot, probably over a hundred posts ago. The bloke is delusional, and obviously doesn't understand what he's looking at. Of course, all the evidence that shows SR to be correct, was conducted by charlatans! Despite some of it being conducted by people trying to show that it was wrong!
Thankfully, nobody will take him seriously. Except other cranks. There's no helping some people.
Omnibus101
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
@RNP: Let me try to help you this way. Do you realize that uniform translatory motion is akin to rest? The I postulate is an expression of this trivial fact. Do you realize that there's no way to tell, when you're at rest wrt k, whether k is moving at v = const wrt K or is at rest wrt K?

If you understand the above, for simplicity, think of k and K as always being at rest wrt each other. Then, it will be easier to understand why the law mustn't change its form, as the I principle requires, both when expressed in terms of x,t coordinates and when it's expressed in zeta, tau coordinates.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 27, 2016
@RNP: Let me try to help you this way. Do you realize that uniform translatory motion is akin to rest? The I postulate is an expression of this trivial fact. Do you realize that there's no way to tell, when you're at rest wrt k, whether k is moving at v = const wrt K or is at rest wrt K?

If you understand the above, for simplicity, think of k and K as always being at rest wrt each other. Then, it will be easier to understand why the law mustn't change its form, as the I principle requires, both when expressed in terms of x,t coordinates and when it's expressed in zeta, tau coordinates.


Bullshit. You simply don't understand SR. But, hey, what the hell, go ahead and publish!
You are right, the whole of the Physics and Mathematics communities who have looked at that paper are wrong. Einstein is wrong. All the verifications of SR were conducted by charlatans. All the instruments that require it to actually work, such as GPS and particle accelerators don't exist.
LMAO.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave, Like I said, I will do much more than publishing this most critical argument, requiring immediate removal of Einstein's relativity from physics (as a matter of fact it is already published in the link I gave). You must know that this is the ultimate argument like nothing that has ever been offered as a criticism of said ``theory'' before. I will go to great lengths to require that the National Academy of Sciences advises the nation that Einstein's relativity is invalid and must be removed from physics. I told you this once. You didn't pay attention. Therefore, I'm repeating it and I'm warning you and everybody else to stop with the insults because that may have consequences.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@meerling: Time-dilation contradicts absolute truths.
You're looking for absolute truth in science?
Anyone who claims to have proven such an impossible thing is a charlatan or a confused individual, at best.
I must be confused. I thought clocks slowed down at higher altitudes.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
I've chosen §10 because it offers the shortest way to unequivocally prove the falsity of Einstein's relativity.
Well, it was the shortest path for demonstrating in a public forum that you don't understand the physics or the maths, anyway. Prattle on, dude, demonstrate away. It's not too late to put "Under Construction" on your website until you learn more about special relativity. A single phrase like, "falsity of Einstein's relativity" demonstrates you don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2016
I will go to great lengths to require that the National Academy of Sciences advises the nation that Einstein's relativity is invalid.............Therefore, I'm repeating it and I'm warning you and everybody else to stop with the insults because that may have consequences


Take a hike, troll. Is that insulting enough for you? What consequences? You're an anonymous internet troll, with a poor grasp of science. Why would anybody care what you think? And besides, I thought the NAS was made up of all these charlatans, who will no doubt also tell you to do one.
Jesus, I've come up against some delusional idiots in my time, but you take the biscuit!
Nobody is going to take seriously anyone who publishes their (misunderstood) world shaking refutation of SR on a f*cking anonymous webpage! You are delusional.
Now, off you go, I suspect it's time for your medication.

Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Seeker2: Indeed, consider the definitions of velocity and acceleration. What are they if not absolute truths? Alos, no, clocks are not slowing down anywhere because that will contradict the absolute truth: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM

@Protoplastix: As was seen, you are the one to learn relativity, not I, and that will be proven where it matters. For instance, you will lose if you say the things you've said in a court of law. I assure you of that. So, you'd better curb your incompetence, which you're using to attack me,

@johnsdave: Wait and you'll see what can and what can't be done.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
Benni, ALL matter expands ALL the time, including you. the observer.
Wow! Where did you pick that up?
Consequently, you do not observe that expansion, only its side effects (e.g. "gravity").
So now we know. Gravity is the expansion of matter. I thought that matter was quantized. At least I thought that's what they taught in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe that version is obsolete now.
Movement is a facet of expansion, any movement relative to an observer is at the expense of uniform expansion, thus reducing time.
So the more you move around the less you expand. Does make sense. But I don't think it reduces your lifetime, does it?

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Strumpy
@regTROLL
or were you talking about the drivel you posted in the paragraphs?...
more to the point - your argument is proven false here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html where I offered explanations for expansion causing orbits etc. in terms even a chimp could understand.
Seeker2
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@Strumpy

more to the point - your argument is proven false here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you still can't comprehend that basic fact, can you?
not one bit of your drivel explains what keeps the path of the orbit, what causes tides or what causes the observed motion of the stars... gravity not only explains it, it also has far more evidence for it than just "read my book"
Your link points to where I made the comment :-"So glad to see you are trying to get some education, you badly need it.
Can I suggest you look for a course on etiquette, courtesy and manners as well?"
I can see why this is relevant for my purposes, but I don't see how this helps you, you obviously never heeded that excellent advice.
You keep bringing up the same old tripe about there being no way expansion can cause orbits without gravity, and similar chestnuts. The link http://phys.org/n...tor.html provides the explanation in simplistic terms even a chimp can understand.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Strumpy
I see you have got round to replying to my explanations regarding orbits etc. on that link, after three days thinking about it. Head hurts, does it? The simplistic explanation required an IQ equivalent to at least a chimpanzee to understand it, so I appreciate your problem. Well, you've finally persuaded me to give up on you once and for all, and put you back on my ignore list. Perhaps if everybody ignores you and your robo-voting self-aggrandisment you will go away.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@Seeker2: Indeed, consider the definitions of velocity and acceleration. What are they if not absolute truths?
If you're talking about measurements, all measurements of physical entities involve uncertainties. Try that for absolute truth.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
Here's the problem. I don't want to set up a precedent empowering crackpots to use websites and ways outside of academia to promote their pseudoscience. On the other hand, the mainstream science is invaded by a certain unique type of crackpot ``science'', which has started with Einstein's relativity. A true scientist is facing a dilemma -- risking to be pronounced as a crackpot by trying to stand by the truth from outside academia or relegate his critical arguments to be judged by the crackpots in academia, who, in reality charlatans, are benefiting from the bogus theory. Thus, I'm between a rock and a hard place.

This seems like an irresolvable problem but the grave damage Einstein's relativity incurs on science and society makes it imperative to take action against this menace and try to make that action as efficient as possible.
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@Seeker2: Indeed, consider the definitions of velocity and acceleration. What are they if not absolute truths?
If you're talking about measurements, all measurements of physical entities involve uncertainties. Try that for absolute truth.


Absolute truths are not measurements, though. Absolute truth, for instance is the fact that one body in one system obeys at a given moment only one (not two, as Einstein derives) equations of motion.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@reg "read my f*cking book somebody PLEASE!" mundy
after three days thinking about it
it took that long to stop laughing at what you wrote!

at least you can work nights as a comedienne since you can't actually work in any science field

.

@omniTROLL
Wait and you'll see what can and what can't be done
does anyone else notice the similarity between this idiots argument and rc's continuous claims about her "ToE" and saving us all from climate science?

and they ASSume that because they make the last post they must be correct? (just like benji, reg, liar-kam and the eu cult too)

i'm beginning to wonder if omni and rc aint the same person considering the tactics are exactly the same, right down to the inability to actually produce evidence that isn't just a claim of "because i said so"

maybe we should treat her like rc and the others too since obviously the site now caters and panders to the troll/pseudoscience crowd
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
@Benni
Have you read and understood the paper of Einstien under discussion? If you have, then where is your input? If you have not not, what gives you the right to comment? Do you have NOTHING scientific to contribute?

If you have nothing to contribute but personal comments then your posts are worthless.
......oh, well, so why did you just put up this "personal comments" post?

Here you are joining the current circus as just one more person who understands almost nothing about either Special or General Relativity. Yet you imagine you can be a competent critic of those of us who challenge you to post claims you make about what YOU claim appears in those theses.

Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: You love to repeat ``inability to actually produce evidence''. The evidence is tangible and is immediately seen in §10. This is direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence, as you perceive it.

@Benni: If you can't understand the flaw I showed in §10, then, you are incompetent.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
last comment to you, @omni, since you obviously don't speak or understand english very well
The evidence is tangible and is immediately seen in §10
then you should have no problem actually getting published in a reputable peer reviewed journal leading to the ability to make predictions, test, verify and validate said claim

until then, you made a claim, and nothing more
and until your paper is published, it's pseudoscience and nothing more
This is direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence
obviously you didn't read that link describing what constitutes direct evidence

LMFAO
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
Isn't the 1st test, initial evaluation? I show the flaws in all Modern Physics! No professors ever answered my question? Why can't gravity be the summation of the fields everywhere? Distance and time could be made equal, let the speed of light =1! This way we can focus upon each sphere at any point in space and time! That is, there is a field that ...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
i.e. God's viewpoint! Therefore we are Gods. I have a distaste for the evil Gods of money!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
Truth, hidden among this!
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
last comment to you, @omni, since you obviously don't speak or understand english very well
The evidence is tangible and is immediately seen in §10
then you should have no problem actually getting published in a reputable peer reviewed journal leading to the ability to make predictions, test, verify and validate said claim

until then, you made a claim, and nothing more
and until your paper is published, it's pseudoscience and nothing more
This is direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence
obviously you didn't read that link describing what constitutes direct evidence

LMFAO


Peer-review is just a smoke screen you use to hide your own incompetence. As for predictions? What predictions? The only prediction is that there can never be an experiment verifying Einstein's relativity in view of its deriving that 1 = 2.
retrosurf
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
>You're an anonymous internet troll, with a poor grasp of science.

Once you use the word troll, the "grasp of science" is irrelevant, at best.

Omnibus101 has been playing you guys like a harp, for two days now.
retrosurf
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
As Phys1 observed, Pax2016 is a wingman, registered the same day as Omnibus101 (November 25 of this year).
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@retrosurf: Indeed, it's amusing if not annoying to see the desperate writhing of those who are fawning the charlatans, benefiting from maintaining that the bogus Einstein's relativity is real science. Pathetic. Especially when it has been proven so categorically that Einstein's relativity is rubbish.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
Hi all. :)

I myself am not completely enamoured of SR theory (since it is merely a 'partial theory' tool which requires fuller/external GR perspective logic/parameter/value 'inputs' to properly inform on the reality physical states etc in the abstract-only SR-type analysis; ie, in order to make absolute sense out of the Twins Paradox scenarios, for example).

NEVERTHELESS, SR is a useful (albeit limited, as I just pointed out above) 'algorithm' for calculating/relating differing 'relatively different parameter values' which may be 'measured' to have 'differing values' between 'non-co-moving' reference frames.

So we must SEPARATE the SR 'algorithm' from 'parameter values' it may 'output' for the various different frames under study being 'calculated/measured' (to relate the SAME LAWS' physical PROPER effect between EACH frame, regardless of the algorithm/equations employed to achieve said cross-frame 'absolute/proper' states/values 'comparisons').

Cheers. Play nice. :)

Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
>You're an anonymous internet troll, with a poor grasp of science.

Once you use the word troll, the "grasp of science" is irrelevant, at best.

Omnibus101 has been playing you guys like a harp, for two days now.

Indeed, Retro.
EVERYbody knows that 1=2 if your talking bout 2 different things. Hell, one proton equals 3 quarks. Of course, the Universe only knows that 1+1= a new 1...
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: ``if your talking bout 2 different things'' Yes, but in this case you're not talking about two different things.
nikola_milovic_378
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arcmetal
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

A) Because he was wrong
B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.
http://www.tandfo...08065415


Well then, that just verifies it, science has become a religion. That's kind of sad.


Lol. Says a believer in a non-existent ether that was shown not to exist over a hundred years ago. Now, that sounds like a faith based belief to me.


Spewing only attacks, offering nothing interesting to say (yes, I read some of your other comments). It sounds like you're a paid shill. Boring.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
As Phys1 observed, Pax2016 is a wingman, registered the same day as Omnibus101 (November 25 of this year).


.....and for your information, Phys1 is a "wingman" for RNP.......he is in fact RNP, just one more of several other names he uses here, another one of which has also appeared above.....Physman.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: ``if your talking bout 2 different things'' Yes, but in this case you're not talking about two different things.

And if your talking about 2 of the same thing you should take into consideration the relative locality. They may be the same, but their locality may not be the same for an "observer" and therefore force effects may not be the same on said "observer".
Peon
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
jonesdave appears to be a troll who possesses multiple accounts in order to down vote any comments he doesn't like, or that don't fit into any current model he approves of.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: On the contrary, what is observed is one thing in one locality. And, yet Einstein derives that this one thing in this one locality obeys simultaneously two different laws of motion. That's nonsense and a ``theory'' deriving such nonsense must be removed from physics without delay.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
jonesdave appears to be a troll who possesses multiple accounts in order to down vote any comments he doesn't like, or that don't fit into any current model he approves of.


Nope, eejit, I've been away elsewhere, reading real science.
Who would be sad enough to need separate accounts to vote up/ down posts????? What does the rating matter? Science isn't a popularity contest, you loon. It's not the Top 40. If you're wrong (i.e. see EU, homeopathy, astrology etc) then you're wrong. Doesn't matter how many followers you've got, how many books, DVDs, placebo pills or newspapers you sell - wrong is wrong.
Perhaps certain people need to realise that, and figure out that that is why nobody takes them seriously.
Won't happen though; there is always something to sell, or an ego to be massaged by having a bunch of equally ignorant fanboys. Sad state of affairs.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: On the contrary, what is observed is one thing in one locality. And, yet Einstein derives that this one thing in this one locality obeys simultaneously two different laws of motion. That's nonsense and a ``theory'' deriving such nonsense must be removed from physics without delay.

What 2 different laws are you referring to?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016

The fact that several people have similar reactions to you only means that all recogniose you as the fraud and an antiscience agitator that you are.


Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics – which would show the crackpot why he's misguided.

From: http://cognitiona...ulations

I believe the person to whom you refer is an engineer! :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: On the contrary, what is observed is one thing in one locality. And, yet Einstein derives that this one thing in this one locality obeys simultaneously two different laws of motion. That's nonsense and a ``theory'' deriving such nonsense must be removed from physics without delay.

What 2 different laws are you referring to?


He can't seem to understand that one equation relates to the electron being at rest at t = 0, the other to when it has velocity v. Pretty bloody simple, even for a Planetary Science grad!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

A) Because he was wrong
B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.
http://www.tandfo...08065415


Well then, that just verifies it, science has become a religion. That's kind of sad.


Lol. Says a believer in a non-existent ether that was shown not to exist over a hundred years ago. Now, that sounds like a faith based belief to me.


Spewing only attacks, offering nothing interesting to say (yes, I read some of your other comments). It sounds like you're a paid shill. Boring.


So where is your 'ether'? It doesn't exist. That was shown over a 100 years ago. Yet you believe in it! How is that not a faith based belief????? As opposed to the mountains of evidence for SR, which replaced it.
Benni
1 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
As Phys1 observed, Pax2016 is a wingman, registered the same day as Omnibus101 (November 25 of this year).


.....and for your information, Phys1 is a "wingman" for RNP.......he is in fact RNP, just one more of several other names he uses here, another one of which has also appeared above.....Physman.


That is nonsense, like everything else you post here.The fact that several people have similar reactions to you only means that all recogniose you as the fraud and an antiscience agitator that you are.


Almost every foul mouthed name calling post you've made since RNP started posting has got an RNP 5 Star attached to it, and you are about the most prolific of all the profanity laced name calling frauds to ever show up here, of course you have some pretty stiff competition in that regard with respect to Stumpo.

Hmmmm, "decades" huh? And your profanity laced foul mouth is your greatest claim to fame.
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: ``He can't seem to understand that one equation relates to the electron being at rest at t = 0, the other to when it has velocity v.''

Absolutely not. Both first and second sets of eq. in §10 are related to the electron at rest. The first set of eq. is for an electron at rest with K, while the second set of eq. is for an electron at rest with k, despite the fact that k is always at a rectilinear motion wrt K at velocity v = const.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: ``What 2 different laws are you referring to?''

F = ma in K and F = beta^3ma in K.
arom
Nov 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: ``What 2 different laws are you referring to?''

F = ma in K and F = beta^3ma in K.

Just a simple artist here. You're gonna have to explain that a little more simply...
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
Both first and second sets of eq. in §10 are related to the electron at rest. The first set of eq. is for an electron at rest with K, while the second set of eq. is for an electron at rest with k, despite the fact that k is always at a rectilinear motion wrt K at velocity v = const.


Wrong. Again. "With the help of these equations we transform the above equations of motion from system k to system K, and obtain: ...and the equation follows.
Once you are back in the reference frame K, the electron is MOVING! It is no longer being viewed from k, which was moving with the same velocity as the electron. As clearly stated:
"Now, secondly, let the velocity of the electron at a given epoch be v. We seek the law of motion of the electron in the immediately ensuing instants of time."
What he means when transferring back to reference frame K, is best illustrated by this image:
https://upload.wi...dard.gif
k is moving along the x axis.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
^^^^And, to put it another way, refer to fig. 6.12 of this:
http://physics.uc...ds/6.pdf
An observer travelling alongside that light beam would see it go straight up and down. A stationary observer, i.e. K, would see fig. 6.12. The light (at constant speed) has travelled further! That means that the time on the speeding craft has slowed down relative to the stationary observer, for the beam to travel between the mirrors in the same amount of time. As it has travelled further, that means more energy. As E = mc^", that means a higher mass (as c is constant). That is relativistic mass.

Hence, if you were to take a trip to a distant star, at relativistic speeds, and then return to Earth, you may find that whereas 5 years has passed for you, 10 years have gone by on Earth.
Seeker2
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
Absolute truth, for instance is the fact that one body in one system obeys at a given moment only one (not two, as Einstein derives) equations of motion.
If a body obeys Newton's laws it must also obey GR. That's how Einstein designed it.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: On the contrary, what is observed is one thing in one locality. And, yet Einstein derives that this one thing in this one locality obeys simultaneously two different laws of motion. That's nonsense and a ``theory'' deriving such nonsense must be removed from physics without delay.
Removing GR from physics would be great if you want to defeat and take over the developed world. Why use bombs if you can do it with rhetoric? After all the pen is mightier than the sword. Right?
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2016
@Seeker2: ``If a body obeys Newton's laws it must also obey GR. That's how Einstein designed it.'' No, no, the problem is elsewhere but I don't have the time to educate you. Sorry. Please, read the link I gave and try to understand where the problem is.
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: No, that's incorrect but, unfortunately, I don't have the time to educate you. Sorry. Read carefully the text in the link I gave and try to understand it. If you have questions, maybe, I can help you, if I see that you're really trying to understand.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2016
cont
Who was it that said this is the way the world ends...this is the way the world ends... not with a bang but with a whimper?
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2016
@Whydening Gyre: ``What 2 different laws are you referring to?''

F = ma in K and F = beta^3ma in K.

Just a simple artist here. You're gonna have to explain that a little more simply...


Sorry, don't have the time to educate you. Read the text in the link I gave and try to understand it. Can't do more.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@Seeker2: ``If a body obeys Newton's laws it must also obey GR. That's how Einstein designed it.''
No, no, the problem is elsewhere but I don't have the time to educate you.
Of course. If you don't have the time to educate yourself why should you bother to educate me?
Sorry. Please, read the link I gave and try to understand where the problem is.
So you get paid by the click?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2016
Absolute truth, for instance is the fact that one body in one system obeys at a given moment only one (not two, as Einstein derives) equations of motion.


If a body obeys Newton's laws it must also obey GR. That's how Einstein designed it.


What Einstein did was to improve on what Newton Gravity calculations could not fully account for when calculating deviation of orbital precession of the planets. Newton knew there was precession deviation of the planets but could not come up with the exact calculation for number of arcseconds of deviation, Einstein made the correction to Newton's calculations of the more notable deviation of precession of Mercury & challenged God to prove he was wrong.......Einstein was deadon accurate.

Maybe Jonesy can explain it better......

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: No, that's incorrect but, unfortunately, I don't have the time to educate you. Sorry. Read carefully the text in the link I gave and try to understand it. If you have questions, maybe, I can help you, if I see that you're really trying to understand.


Give it a rest you supercilious buffoon. I sure as hell don't need educating from a crank like you. Thousands of scientists have read that paper from back to front. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived. Including Nobel prize winners. They saw nothing wrong with it. The only person who thinks it is wrong is you, you burke!!!! What are the chances, huh? They are ALL wrong, and charlatans, or you are an idiot who doesn't understand what you are looking at? Given that I CAN understand the paper, just like all those thousands of scientists, I'm betting on the latter.
You're either a fraud, or you are genuinely too stupid to understand the paper. Probably both.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
Sorry, don't have the time to educate you. Read the text in the link I gave and try to understand it. Can't do more.


The text in the link you gave is pure, unadulterated, uneducated bullshit.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: ``The text in the link you gave is pure, unadulterated, uneducated bullshit.''

This is nothing else but aggressive arrogance, demonstrated by someone completely incompetent in the matters at hand, as already seen in his posts. Must be ignored.

Those who need help in understanding the problem may come to the site I posted. Preliminary knowledge of the basics, however, is necessary since I don't have the time to carry out an educational course.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
Maybe Jonesy can explain it better......[\q]

Not in the space available here! This page does a reasonable job: http://io9.gizmod...58642219

To do with GR, and the warping of space-time due to mass. Of course, the old charlatan was spot on.
If Omni had worked it out, Mercury should now be somewhere near Uranus, or his anus, or somewhere in between.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: ``The text in the link you gave is pure, unadulterated, uneducated bullshit.''

This is nothing else but aggressive arrogance, demonstrated by someone completely incompetent in the matters at hand, as already seen in his posts. Must be ignored.

Those who need help in understanding the problem may come to the site I posted. Preliminary knowledge of the basics, however, is necessary since I don't have the time to carry out an educational course.


ROFLMAO! What are you angling for? A speaking slot at the next EU conference? Or leader of just another pseudoscience cult?
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2016
@jonesdave: I've made a seminal discovery, which brings down with one shot the entire edifice of nonsense persisting for 111 years in physics. No need for you to appreciate that. There are others who really matter who will.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2016
There are others who really matter who will.


No, I was wrong - you're angling for your own comedy show!

What you've actually done is make an unbelievable f*ck up, and anyone with the slightest bit of education in the subject (or with an IQ of 100+) will immediately see that. Which is why your rubbish will never amount to anything more than an anonymous page on the internet. If you were really serious, you'd be on a science/ physics forum with this. But you know you'd get slaughtered on them, so you come here as part of your pseudoscience recruiting drive, with associated link spamming.

However, I'll continue downloading conference abstract booklets, awaiting this momentous announcement!
savvys84
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
here we go, proving einstein wrong
First Paper ' Einstein ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-2.html

Second Paper ' Universal ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-3.html
Peon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
there is always something to sell, or an ego to be massaged by having a bunch of equally ignorant fanboys. Sad state of affairs.

You've been spending too much time gazing into the mirror talking to yourself.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave, ``If you were really serious, you'd be on a science/ physics forum with this.'' Oh, don't you worry. I'm going to be. I'm very, very serious about this.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
there is always something to sell, or an ego to be massaged by having a bunch of equally ignorant fanboys. Sad state of affairs.

You've been spending too much time gazing into the mirror talking to yourself.


Ooooooh, who pushed your button? I'm guessing you're one of the crank science followers on here? Which particular woo do you subscribe to?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave, ``If you were really serious, you'd be on a science/ physics forum with this.'' Oh, don't you worry. I'm going to be. I'm very, very serious about this.


Oh goody. Try here: http://www.intern...ndex.php

Or here: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/ (against the mainstream thread)

You'll get slaughtered. If I can see the error you've made, they most certainly will.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2016
@sawys84,
here we go, proving einstein wrong
First Paper ' Einstein ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-2.html


That is a FAKE journal!!!!!! LMAO.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2016
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave: I've made a seminal discovery, which brings down with one shot the entire edifice of nonsense persisting for 111 years in physics. No need for you to appreciate that. There are others who really matter who will.
There is this cosmological constant problem which is supposed to be off by 123 orders of magnitude. But it hasn't seemed to have brought down the entire edifice of 111 years of physics yet, I don't think. Maybe you're going to help it along?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
@Omnibus101
There are these anachronisms about curved and flat spacetime. You might be able to help us out along these lines.
arcmetal
1 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
@savvys84
here we go, proving einstein wrong
First Paper ' Einstein ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-2.html


One of the first papers that made me notice that something was wrong with GR was:

"Einstein's Explanation of Perihelion Motion of Mercury" by Hua Di

Where he lays out that since Mercury's advancing perihelion of 43 arcseconds per century was well known apriori to GR, Einstein fudged his calculations of GR to get it to fit with the data. (the fudging is laid out in the paper)

Plus all of the other papers out there that describe the other effects which contribute to Mercury's advancing perihelion, such as the sun's oblateness, or its motion about the solar system's barycentre, thus reducing the need to use GR to explain it.
Peon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
Ooooooh, who pushed your button? I'm guessing you're one of the crank science followers on here? Which particular woo do you subscribe to?

Pull his string and watch him spout, this is almost fun.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave: Thanks for the links but, no, my argument is not up for discussion. It's final. Therefore I'm aiming higher than that. I said what I'm expecting in December but you're not paying attention, as you're not paying attention re the technical part. Like I said, if you want to know why you're wrong, come to the site and you may get an answer.

@Seeker2: ``There is this cosmological constant problem …'' The problem I've shown is catastrophic because it brings down the physical validity of the Lorentz transformations.

@Seeker2: ``There are these anachronisms about curved and flat spacetime. You might be able to help us out along these lines.'' There's no such thing as spacetime because spacetime follows from the Lorentz transformations, which are physically invalid, as I've shown.
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdaxe: ``
^^^^^^^^http://fake-india...asa.html
''

You must address the arguments and not where these arguments are published. You're an incompetent troll who has no clue and therefore you rely on doxxing to conceal your incompetence.

RNP
5 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@Benni
Almost every foul mouthed name calling post you've made since RNP started posting has got an RNP 5 Star attached to it.....................

This is a blatant and easily refuted claim. I invite you and everybody else to look at Phys1's and my activity. You have allowed your paranoid delusions get the better of you.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Benni

Almost every foul mouthed name calling post you've made since RNP started posting has got an RNP 5 Star attached to it.....................

This is a blatant and easily refuted claim. I invite you and everybody else to look at Phys1's and my activity. You have allowed your paranoid delusions get the better of you.
.......so prove my statement about your 5 Star vote record for the foul mouthed Phys1 is such an "easily refuted claim".

C'mon there Rguy, prove you are not the foul mouthed Phys1 guy.
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
@Benni
.......so prove my statement about your 5 Star vote record for the foul mouthed Phys1 is such an "easily refuted claim".

I HAVE proved it. I told you to just look at our activity pages. It is clear to ANYONE that does that you are lying.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
Ooooooh, who pushed your button? I'm guessing you're one of the crank science followers on here?


.......yeah, right along with the rest of the Black Hole & Dark Matter Enthusiasts who live here right along with you Jonesy.

One time you come on this site & get something right in the midst of all this banter between yourself & Omni, the rest of the time you spend trying to insert Black Hole Math into Einstein's thesis of General Relativity & you expect adoring affection from those of us who are educated far better than you in Nuclear Physics. You're JUST an Astronomer Jonesy, quit while your still ahead in your back & forth banter with Omni, you're on the verge of becoming as shrill & foul mouthed as Stumpo or Phys1 has ever been.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Benni

.......so prove my statement about your 5 Star vote record for the foul mouthed Phys1 is such an "easily refuted claim".

I HAVE proved it. I told you to just look at our activity pages. It is clear to ANYONE that does that you are lying.
...........and you have so many Activity pages where you unambiguously put up 5 Stars for so many of the Phys1 foul mouthed rants. If you're not Phys1, why did you do that?
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
There's no such thing as spacetime...
I thought spacetime was where events live. So events have nowhere to live? Or maybe there is no such thing as an event?
spacetime follows from the Lorentz transformations, which are physically invalid, as I've shown.
So this is why there are no such thing as events?So if there are no events how can something be physical?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
I've heard about imaginary numbers. So now we have imaginary events? Sort of like la-la land.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: Events do live in space and time but not in a cockoo land called spacetime. If you need to know the time in k if the time in K is t, then you should know that in k it's the same time t and not an imaginary time, following from the Lorentz transformations. Why? Because Lorentz transformations have no physical meaning, as I've shown. By the way, I've never heard in the correct physics, which is the classical physics, that events live in spacetime. Crackpots live in spacetime. In real nature events live in space and in time -- they have distinct spatial dimensions, different from the temporal one.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
Crackpots live in spacetime.
Sure do. Like in cyber space.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
but, no, my argument is not up for discussion. It's final.
Funny that you think it's possible to discuss something that you clearly don't understand. Funnier still that you don't seem to understand scientific methodology in general. The sad part is that you have thoroughly disrupted the discussion of actual science about an interesting theory and realistic ways to test it... alas, if you can't even grasp special relativity there's no way you could appreciate the subject matter of the article, is there?
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
@Omnibus101
Maybe we should ask just what is physical?
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
...my argument is not up for discussion.
I don't think you have an argument.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
but, no, my argument is not up for discussion. It's final.
Sounds like the Third Reich. Who sent you?
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Omnibus101
Maybe we should ask just what is physical?


Physical, for example, is the fact that one body in one system obeys only one law of motion at a time, not two different laws of motion at a time, as Einstein derives. Einstein's derivation is not only non-physical but it's travesty of science.

By the way, I do have an argument and that fact is independent of whether or not you understand it.

Also, when a wrong theory is overthrown, it's no Third Reich. Overthrowing caloric theory or geocentricism is not putting them in a concentration camp to make them suffer.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@EnsignFlandry: What hypotheses?
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@EnsignFlandry: ``There is always a statement like this when a serious physics hypothesis is discussed. Paranoid schizophrenia is unfortunately all too common.''

That is not enough to say because it is unsustained and sounds like insult or envy, at best. If you're really serious, you should point out its deficiencies, which should be easy for you, especially when you pronounce it to be so nutty.
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
Shouldn't the assertion of the constancy of the speed of light be credited to Faraday, Maxwell, and the third guy whose name escapes me, who constructed a theory, never found faulty, that predicts and REQUIRES the constancy of C?

- g
TimLong2001
Nov 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
If you're really serious, you should point out its deficiencies,
What? After you just announced:
but, no, my argument is not up for discussion. It's final." ?
Several people here pointed out the [serious] deficiencies for you and you haven't thanked a single one for their efforts. You did the opposite, because that's how you are. At least 3 different people pointed out basically the same deficiencies in your "work" and quite a few others pointed out additional deficiencies in your conduct. Your work surely is "final," because it's wrong.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
One time you come on this site & get something right in the midst of all this banter between yourself & Omni, the rest of the time you spend trying to insert Black Hole Math into Einstein's thesis of General Relativity & you expect adoring affection from those of us who are educated far better than you in Nuclear Physics. You're JUST an Astronomer Jonesy, quit while your still ahead in your back & forth banter with Omni, you're on the verge of becoming as shrill & foul mouthed as Stumpo or Phys1 has ever been.


Feck off! I very rarely discuss anything outside of planetary science.
I certainly don't get involved in DM stuff. I leave that to people who DO understand physics. That, by the way, does not include idiots like Crothers. Another idiot with a God complex, who also fuxxed up his maths.
And I think you'll find I am also right about the non-existent electric comet, yes? And volcanoes on Io, and craters not being electrical woo. Et boring cetera.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
You're JUST an Astronomer Jonesy,


And, by your own admission, you are just an engineer. You didn't mention which degree. What was it?

"Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics – which would show the crackpot why he's misguided."

Kind of explains the EU cranks, as well.

http://cognitiona...ulations
SHREEKANT
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2016
"Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - ….. that could be tested."
2nd OPINION:

I have been not only writing but also given reason for the variable speed of light in my oral presentation in International Science Conference in Vietnam on "Planetary System – a synergistic view" [19th – 25th, July' 2015]. My topic was "Regeneration of Star & formation of a Solar system – a Potter man's concept"

Reference-1

http://rencontres...cipants/

Reference-2

MY VIEW:

I have ALREADY written on 27th, Aug. 2014

AGREED but not with the speed of light it travel with variable velocity [may be much higher or much lower] depending on…..

www.swarajgroups....72991367

Reference-3

FOR DETAILS:

http://swarajgrou...ins.html
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Protoplasmix: ``Several people here pointed out the [serious] deficiencies''

Point just one such ``deficiency''. But, be careful what you choose, because I'm not going to waste time with your confusion any further.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Accounts: Constancy of the speed of light should be accredited solely to Michelson and Morley. Einstein added to it the obviously non-physical requirement that the seed of light should not depend on the velocity of the source. To see that Einstein's addition is non-physical, one doesn't need experiments. I can explain why it's non-physical but that would be only a waste of time. The discovery I made about the internal contradiction in §10 is a crushing argument of grandiose proportions and is the real single argument that overthrows Einstein's relativity in its entirety.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
Point one such deficiency


A train, with an observer (k) is approaching a signal pole (x = 0). The track is x. Alongside the track are many observers with accurate clocks (K). Flying alongside the observer in the train (k), is a transparent UFO (electron), with a being inside, moving at precisely the same speed.
The equation describes initially what is seen from the observer on the train (k).
A higher power presses the pause button as the UFO and train observer are at the signal pole (x = 0, t=0). At that point, k and K see the same thing, and beta^3 = 1. Nothing is moving relative to each other. Then the play button is pressed, at which time the equations jump to the observers by the track (K). Still no difference for k, but K sees something different.
If the UFO being points a torch at an overhead mirror, k & K now see two different things. See the figure in here: http://www.dummie...ativity/

Simple.

antigoracle
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2016
Physics is in desperate need of something interesting. I know it's a long shot, but here's hoping they find what they are looking for.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@Accounts: As a matter of fact, Michelson-Morley's experiment is the crucial experiment which overthrows the second postulate (the postulate for the constancy of the speed of light) because its premise was to test that very proposal (of course, not calling it a postulate) and the experiment rejected it. However, like I said, it's a waste of time to deal w/ the constancy of the speed of light postulate, now that we have the crucial argument which I discovered, regarding the internal contradiction in §10.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@antigoracle: ``Physics is in desperate need of something interesting. I know it's a long shot, but here's hoping they find what they are looking for.''

The first step is to remove Einstein's relativity from physics.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
The discovery I made about the internal contradiction in §10 is a crushing argument of grandiose proportions and is the real single argument that overthrows Einstein's relativity in its entirety.


Rubbish. You are an anonymous internet troll, with zero understanding of what you are talking about. As 111 years of experimental and observational verification prove.
Who are you? When are you going to publish? Why would you keep something like this secret? And believe me, on a webpage and youtube, it will remain secret to the scientific world!
Why don't you bugger off, and start writing this nonsense up, instead of continually showing your ignorance on here?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Phys,
a crushing argument of grandiose proportions and is the real single argument that overthrows Einstein's relativity in its entirety.

Describing your own work in such terms is a dead give away.


If you haven't read it already, this is a good description of what this bloke is doing:
http://cognitiona...ulations

Absolute classic pseudoscience 101. Yet another crank in a long line of cranks.

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
Phys1: ``Describing your own work in such terms is a dead give away.''

... but is true.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave: ``A train, with an observer (k) is approaching a signal pole (x = 0) …''

That explanation would've been perfectly correct had we not noticed that prior to what you described, even when k moves wrt K, not only k sees the same thing in k but also what K sees contains no beta. Did you notice this or you like to skip steps just to suit you?

How is it, then, possible for the same electron in the same K both to see beta (according to you) and not to see beta, as initially established for k moving wrt K?

Answer: That's impossible. This is an internal contradiction and a ``theory'' deriving such a stupid thing must be rejected and removed from physics.

Accounts
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
@Omnibus There are THREE people who deserve credit: Faraday, Maxwell AND a mathematician who, like Leibniz, cleaned up Maxwell's overly clumsy maths. Leibniz cleaned up Newton's calculus and is the formulation everyone use today including you.

Ditto the formulation of incorrectly labelled "Maxwell's equations" we use today..
Although Maxwell really did have a silver hammer.

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
The discovery I made about the internal contradiction in §10 is a crushing argument of grandiose proportions and is the real single argument that overthrows Einstein's relativity in its entirety.


Rubbish. You are an anonymous internet troll, with zero understanding of what you are talking about. As 111 years of experimental and observational verification prove.
Who are you? When are you going to publish? Why would you keep something like this secret? And believe me, on a webpage and youtube, it will remain secret to the scientific world!
Why don't you bugger off, and start writing this nonsense up, instead of continually showing your ignorance on here?


Says you, the proven incompetent, as seen in this thread. You like to embarrass yourself, don't you?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
That explanation would've been perfectly correct had we not noticed that prior to what you described, even when k moves wrt K, not only k sees the same thing in k but also what K sees contains no beta. Did you notice this or you like to skip steps just to suit you?


Jesus, your ignorance knows no bounds, does it? K is NOT SEEING ANYTHING until t=0, x=0. At which point beta^3 = 1! Beta^3 only comes into use when (and because) the effing electron is moving with regard to K! FFS, we learned this stuff at high school! Any undergrad could spot your obvious error.
Why don't you just give it up on here, eh? You are not convincing anyone with the remotest understanding of the subject. Go somewhere else, or write your crap up in a paper, and give somebody else a laugh.

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@Accounts: It's true that there are inferences to c = const in all these scientists' studies. However, experiment is what matters and Michelson and Morley were the first to prove it experimentally (save the stupid addition by Einstein). As for the Maxwell equations -- the Faraday law in them is non-physical wrt unipolar generator and they cannot derive the Lorentz force in that case. Ampere's theory of electricity is preferable and that should've been developed and adopted by science on a wider scale. I also hope you noticed my statement that Enstein's relativity cannot derive E = mc² and that mass-energy relation resides trivially in classical physics. For instance, Ampere's law is an expression of E = mc².
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave: ``K is NOT SEEING ANYTHING until t=0, x=0. At which point beta^3 = 1! Beta^3 only comes into use when (and because) the effing electron is moving with regard to K!''

That isn't true. Firstly, what the moving k (the moving k, I repeat) sees has been arrived at from what K sees. There's no beta in what K sees. neither is there beta in what k sees.

Beta appears frivolously because Einstein wants to make a discovery and neglects the absolute truth that there is only one way for k to see what K sees. In addition, that absolute truth is a requirement by Einstein's own I postulate (aka the principle of relativity). Thus, Einstein applies the Lorentz transformations, which yield a result in conflict w/ the I postulate; that is, according to the ``derivation'' by Einstein K both sees and not sees beta.

The above is impossible and constitutes internal contradiction, which renders the entire ``theory'' as sheer nonsense which must be removed from physics entirely at once.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
Point just one such ``deficiency''. But, be careful what you choose, because I'm not going to waste time with your confusion any further.
Oh, I think you will, but here you go, from your recent post:
one doesn't need experiments.

Omcrazibus101: Newton's work, Einstein's work, and the work of many other bright minds isn't "final;" it lives on, and is fundamentally at the heart of every viable possibility of finding new (or additional) physics, because of how successful it's been in humanity's efforts to understand, predict, and shape future realities.

Is your website just click-bait? You'll need to try harder on science sites if you have any aspirations of becoming a master baiter.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@Protoplasmix: You pointed to absolutely nothing to prove I'm wrong. Yours is just blabber. Be ashamed.

And, by the way, Einstein's work at hand will soon be gone from physics. It only harms science and society at large.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2016
@Omni,
Nope, you are definitely an idiot.
Beta is irrelevant when the system is stationary. To clarify my previous; beta is not equal to 1, strictly speaking, only insofar as it would cancel out between k and K when stationary, as compared to the electron. Beta = 1/SQRT(1 -- v^2/c^2)! There is no v^2 for k. It is always at the same velocity as the electron. There is no beta for K, at t=0, x = 0. K is stationary at that time. When the reference frame switches to K, and k and the electron are moving past it, that is when beta becomes a real number.
Hence time dilation. As measured. Hence relativistic mass. As measured. That is why your GPS works. That is why particle accelerators work. Using pre-Einsteinian physics they wouldn't.
So how are you going to make all these things that rely on SR and GR work? What are you using as a fudge factor? When are you going to write it up?
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Omnibus101
As a rule of thumb, when others say that you are grandiose, it may be true.
When you yourself do, consult a doctor.


A discovery, such as the one I'm presenting, which brings down in one blow the whole rotten edifice of magnificent proportions poisoning science, is nothing other than magnificent and grandiose.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Proto,
......if you have any aspirations of becoming a master baiter.


Oh, he's achieved that already, although your spelling leaves something to be desired :)
Merrit
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
The article seems premature. The theory should be actually tested before it is posted.
@Stumpy our omnitroll friend is trying to do a math proof rather than science, so it doesn't require experimentation.

@Omnitroll wow so much wrong.
1. Source does matter. You could have proof of God, cure to every known disease, and the answer to life to universe and everything and it would not matter in the least until your paper is published in a legitimate channel.
2. Math and physics routinely drop and add terms when necessary. Writing out the full equation every time is tedious. In your particular case the term you are so concerned about equals 1. So 1 = 1.
3. Even if by some miracle you were correct and did find a contradiction it would still not matter in the least. Einstein equations are still very useful and predict real events.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
A discovery, such as the one I'm presenting, which brings down in one blow the whole rotten edifice of magnificent proportions poisoning science, is nothing other than magnificent and grandiose.


NURSE, NURSE, HE'S NOT TAKEN HIS MEDICATION AGAIN. QUICK!

Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
@Omni,
Nope, you are definitely an idiot.
Beta is irrelevant when the system is stationary. ...


When k sees F' = ma', k is not stationary wrt K. If, however, k sees F' = ma', as it does, then K must see F = ma because this is where F' = ma' come from -- this is what you see in the first two sets of eq. in §10. And that's the only way F' = ma' in k is represented in K. The only way. That only way, which Einstein also recognizes, by the way, is trivial and constitutes no discovery. There's no beta anywhere to be seen in all of this. Is that so difficult to understand?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
Go back to the beginning of the 20th century, we knew everything! So no new paper required, no need for a paper, it's the acceptance of nonsense papers that set this stage. So stop inventing stuff that does not exists and trying to prove it. Papers are the problem. Simply erase the last 100 years. There are no fundamental particles, GR is mathematically incorrect, the Standard Model was never based upon reality, the weak and strong force only a guess, anti-matter an overreaction to observation. Who says we need more of this nonsense? The entire system is bogus. QM is not science! Papers are simply as nonsensical a these conversations.
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Merrit: ``Einstein equations are still very useful and predict real events.''

No, they are not. They are internally contradictory, which is a synonym of nonsense. Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics as soon as possible and in its entirety.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy: Einstein's relativity is physically incorrect, not mathematically. Lorentz transformations are perfectly fine mathematically.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2016
There's no beta anywhere to be seen in all of this. Is that so difficult to understand?


And there is your misunderstanding encapsulated! I repeat, you are an idiot. I explained what beta was. It is only relevant when a reference frame is moving relative to another reference frame.
k is NOT looking at K. It is looking at the bloody electron (UFO, call it what you will). It is moving ALONGSIDE the electron, at the SAME VELOCITY. No need for any correction to what k is seeing.
K, however (after t = 0), is seeing the electron while it is MOVING. Then you do need beta. It includes v^2. We now have v relative to the stationary observers (K).

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
Go back to the beginning of the 20th century, we knew everything! So no new paper required, no need for a paper, it's the acceptance of nonsense papers that set this stage. So stop inventing stuff that does not exists and trying to prove it. Papers are the problem. Simply erase the last 100 years. There are no fundamental particles, GR is mathematically incorrect, the Standard Model was never based upon reality, the weak and strong force only a guess, anti-matter an overreaction to observation. Who says we need more of this nonsense? The entire system is bogus. QM is not science! Papers are simply as nonsensical a these conversations.


tl;dr? He finds it too difficult to understand, and was probably not very good at maths/ physics at school. Therefore he needs something he can understand, albeit with zero evidence or scientifically valid mechanisms. i.e. God, or EU crankery, or some other such nonsense. That's usually why these cranks manage to attract followers.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
@Stumpy our omnitroll friend is trying to do a math proof rather than science, so it doesn't require experimentation.
Au contraire, mon frere (and Stumpy didn't just call him on that, I did). The results of meticulously performed experiments, many of them, for both special and general relativity, match the predictions of the theories, and as jonesdave just pointed out, how does Omtrollibus101 hope to explain yet another glaring, voluminous set of reality-based deficiencies in his assertions?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Go back to the beginning of the 20th century, we knew everything!


Err, no we didn't. Why do you think we have Einstein's (much verified) SR? People were inventing a non-existent 'luminiferous aether', in order to explain discrepancies. Some of the validation of Einstein's theories were from people still trying to hold on to this idea. They couldn't find it, and Einstein's theory became accepted (except by a few cranks). And if it wasn't for quantum, you wouldn't have been able to come on here and post your comment!
Next time you're ill, I hope you take yourself off to a hospital that only practices early 20th century medicine. Don't ask for an MRI scan - that relies on QM.
richdiggins
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
Regarding "luminiferous aether" ...

lets take a fresh look at the Michelson-Morley experiment with the accepted knowledge that a half-silvered mirror produces entanglement.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
@rich,

"As I said, crackpots are all committed to the principles of sound science – and they have done their homework. So where did it all go wrong? The textbook problem is in my view the crucial clue. Crackpots devote entire sites to discussing the Michelson-Morley experiment. To most physicists, such discussions are largely irrelevant, as these classic experiments were only the first ones in a long series of tests that showed the complete agreement between observations and predictions from special relativity. Also, the crackpots are generally not aware that every day, in thousands of labs all over the world, people are performing experiments that require special relativity, and that these experiments turn out all right because relativistic principles are included in people's computations."

http://cognitiona...ulations

in other words, Pseudoscience 101.
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy: Einstein's relativity is physically incorrect, not mathematically. Lorentz transformations are perfectly fine mathematically.
Now I see. We have to throw out mathematics. Next it will be reason. The final solution. The end of time, relatively speaking.
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@jonesdave: `` is NOT looking at K''

Of course, k isn't looking at K. k, while moving (i repeat, while moving) is looking at its own F' = ma' where there's no beta. That F' = ma' came from F = ma in K. K is looking at F = ma. But there's no beta either.

Beta comes about because of the low quality of thinking of Einstein, who is ready to violate absolute truths, who is ready to violate his own postulate, and applies the Lorentz transformations, which enter the law in K to F = beta^3ma. So, according to Einstein, K is looking at both F = ma and at F = beta^3ma for the same electron in the same system at the same time. This is stupidity to no end. One body in one system can obey only one law of motion (and not two, as Einstein incorrectly derives). This is internal contradiction.

Because of the above blatant internal contradiction, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics as soon as possible, to prevent further harm to science and society, intellectually and financially
Omnibus101
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy: Einstein's relativity is physically incorrect, not mathematically. Lorentz transformations are perfectly fine mathematically.
Now I see. We have to throw out mathematics. Next it will be reason. The final solution. The end of time, relatively speaking.


The Lorentz transformations must go because they have no physical meaning. Other math will stay, depending on whether or not it makes physical sense. Otherwise, it should go too.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy: Einstein's relativity is physically incorrect, not mathematically. Lorentz transformations are perfectly fine mathematically.
Now I see. We have to throw out mathematics. Next it will be reason. The final solution. The end of time, relatively speaking.


The Lorentz transformations must go because they have no physical meaning. Other math will stay, depending on whether or not it makes physical sense. Otherwise, it should go too.

Please, you missed the point. No structured logic, no physical reality! Mathematically? Not the issue.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Hi Omnibus101 (and to all whom it may concern). :)

REMINDER:

The equations mean nothing because they are mere abstractions from reality; and the person applying the equations in any particular dynamic scenario must presume things which are 'input' to equations in order to get 'predictions' and 'understandings' about the different 'observed/measured' VALUES/TIMINGS which non-co-moving observers will 'see' and then must 'adjust' for their own frame of reference using such equations. The FACTORS which must be allowed for/input into the abstract analysis ARE: 'simultaneity' AND 'signal delay between frames' considerations.

All these things are allowed for using the equations as an 'algorithmic tool' for RECONCILING the effects in REALITY in BOTH frames being compared..in order to predict the effect of REALITY in BOTH frames at ALL 'simultaneous' instants relating the two frames/observers.

Unwarranted 'certainties' from BOTH 'sides' increases the confusion. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
The math dismisses momentum, failure to reconcile; therefore, incomplete, hence, incorrect! Not to mention the forces that are at play at very large distances, depending upon the motion such that the dot products with r are real. It's complete, nonsense. I smile, while we miss the rocket equation, dm/dt.

Measurements of the speed of light, with no axiomatic structure? Particles?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
Because of the above blatant internal contradiction, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics as soon as possible, to prevent further harm to science and society, intellectually and financially
So let's burn the textbooks and ban the mathematicians. Now the world is up for grabs. Why not? ISIS also demolishes our cultural artifacts. Throw out our memories along with our culture. It's back to the stone age. Every thug's dream with them in charge.
richdiggins
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2016
Well, this is a discussion board, and as such is open to everyone and their ideas, regardless of how "crackpot" you believe it to be.

Regarding the Michelson-Morley experiments, even the updated/modern versions, all use half-silvered mirrors + beam splitters from what I have seen. That means that quantum entanglement has a hand in the results.

https://en.wikipe...periment

The reality is that this site is full of mainstream crackpots helping shut down any thought process + free speech that is seen as a threat to the beliefs which the Ministry of Truth has used to indoctrinate the populous.
Omnibus101
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@RealityCheck: Not at all. When equations describe two completely different laws of motion for one single electron in one single system at a given time, as Einstein's relativity does, such ``theory'' must be removed from physics as promptly as possible, in its entirety, to prevent further sever damage to science and society at large, both intellectually and financially.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
Well, this is a discussion board, and as such is open to everyone and their ideas, regardless of how "crackpot" you believe it to be.

Regarding the Michelson-Morley experiments, even the updated/modern versions, all use half-silvered mirrors + beam splitters from what I have seen. That means that quantum entanglement has a hand in the results.

https://en.wikipe...periment

The reality is that this site is full of mainstream crackpots helping shut down any thought process + free speech that is seen as a threat to the beliefs which the Ministry of Truth has used to indoctrinate the populous.

Don't use interpreted experimental results defined with poor understanding of the relationship to the source and distant sources as proof.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Omni,
Sorry, you are just too stupid for me to keep having to explain this to you. You haven't got a clue. Please, resurrect this thread when you publish your nonsense, and include a link to it. I enjoy a good laugh.
I am now going to the pub, where, no doubt, I will be able to find an average punter, who has drunk six pints of lager, who has a better grasp of SR than you do.
richdiggins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
And for the record, I think that @Omnibus101 deserves our respect and could be right!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
Well, this is a discussion board, and as such is open to everyone and their ideas, regardless of how "crackpot" you believe it to be.

Regarding the Michelson-Morley experiments, even the updated/modern versions, all use half-silvered mirrors + beam splitters from what I have seen. That means that quantum entanglement has a hand in the results.

https://en.wikipe...periment

The reality is that this site is full of mainstream crackpots helping shut down any thought process + free speech that is seen as a threat to the beliefs which the Ministry of Truth has used to indoctrinate the populous.


^^^^^^ Again, standard pseudoscience rant. Funding, blah, blah, blah, Closed minds, blah, blah, blah, free speech, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc.
Publish the crap, and explain where the evidence is, and how you have overturned a century of science. And how SR is wrong despite countless verifications. Then, maybe, somebody will listen.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
The Lorentz transformations must go because they have no physical meaning. Other math will stay, depending on whether or not it makes physical sense. Otherwise, it should go too.
There is no spacetime. There are no events. So wth does physical mean?
Omnibus101
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Because of the above blatant internal contradiction, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics as soon as possible, to prevent further harm to science and society, intellectually and financially
So let's burn the textbooks and ban the mathematicians. Now the world is up for grabs. Why not? ISIS also demolishes our cultural artifacts. Throw out our memories along with our culture. It's back to the stone age. Every thug's dream with them in charge.


Let's. Wrong physics must be removed as well as math that has no physical sense. Everything else remains, including the proper, physically consistent, math.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: Hey, read what I wrote and don't change my words to serve your lies.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Omni,
Sorry, you are just too stupid for me to keep having to explain this to you. You haven't got a clue. Please, resurrect this thread when you publish your nonsense, and include a link to it. I enjoy a good laugh.
I am now going to the pub, where, no doubt, I will be able to find an average punter, who has drunk six pints of lager, who has a better grasp of SR than you do.


You like to embarrass yourself. All right, be my guest. Everyone can see that in the first and the second set of equations in §10 there's no beta, despite that both sets of equations are written for k moving wrt K at a uniform rectilinear motion. You're done, buddy. Concede.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Hi Omnibus101. :)

Sorry to be so brief, but am very busy at the moment and only posting/trying now to reduce the level of animosity/insults from BOTH 'sides' in this side-discussion. So, briefly...
@RealityCheck: Not at all. When equations describe two completely different laws of motion for one single electron in one single system at a given time, as Einstein's relativity does, such ``theory'' must be removed from physics as promptly as possible, in its entirety, to prevent further sever damage to science and society at large, both intellectually and financially.
Just as in QM equations/algorithms,it's all about "shut up and calculate" using the best available abstract methods available at current time until the complete and consistent reality-based theory is available that will make all these arguments/certainties, from both 'sides' here, moot.

F=ma and F'=ma' equations NOT 'the same'; because VARIABLES need 'adjust/inputting' to RECONCILE effects in two frames. :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Phys,
And for the record, I think that @Omnibus101 deserves our respect and could be right!

Yeah right !


http://theconvers...ks-49661

Sums it up nicely. Now, I really am off to the pub!
richdiggins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2016
"You obviously did not read the guidelines."

lol, why would I bother to read "the guidelines"? So that I can accept censorship and the strange attitude that permeates this site like an old lady fart?

Re: Entanglement; "Undoubtedly. So what ?"
Draws the conclusions into question. At best, Invalidates the results. I presumed it would be obvious what I was pointing at.

Personally, I believe that most of the crap on this site is just advertisements for companies and universities of "truth".

I also believe that the true nature of the universe is most likely Top Secret. So, Call me a crackpot, because all these comments from the truth-brigade are enough to make me religious.

Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
The reality is that this site is full of mainstream crackpots helping shut down any thought process + free speech that is seen as a threat to the beliefs which the Ministry of Truth has used to indoctrinate the populous.
The Ministry of Truth or anyone with all the answers also has all the questions. Your question might not be one of them. Too bad. Not allowed.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Phys,
And for the record, I think that @Omnibus101 deserves our respect and could be right!

Yeah right !


http://theconvers...ks-49661

Sums it up nicely. Now, I really am off to the pub!


And, what do you think you prove w/ that quote? Nothing. You're so confused that dealing w/ you isn't fun at all. Read your last muddled explanations. Pathetic.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
The Lorentz transformations must go because they have no physical meaning. Other math will stay, depending on whether or not it makes physical sense. Otherwise, it should go too.

There is no spacetime. There are no events. So wth does physical mean?
@Seeker2: Hey, read what I wrote and don't change my words to serve your lies.
Ok. So please. First write the answer to my question. Maybe then I'll know better.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
The Lorentz transformations must go because they have no physical meaning. Other math will stay, depending on whether or not it makes physical sense. Otherwise, it should go too.

There is no spacetime. There are no events. So wth does physical mean?
@Seeker2: Hey, read what I wrote and don't change my words to serve your lies.
Ok. So please. First write the answer to my question. Maybe then I'll know better.


I answered that already. Go back in the thread and find it.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
Everyone can see that in the first and the second set of equations in §10 there's no beta, despite that both sets of equations are written for k moving wrt K at a uniform rectilinear motion. You're done, buddy. Concede.
So their relative velocity is 0 and beta=1. Why should there be? They call it relativity for a reason.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
Personally, I believe that most of the crap on this site is just advertisements for companies and universities of "truth"
@dickdiggins
the first thing i wonder then: why are you here?

then i would wonder: why you would bother to comment considering you would only then be supporting the very "truths" you find so limiting as it is "censorship and the strange attitude that permeates this site like an old lady fart"

.

.

Everyone can see ...
omnidiot
i suggest you consider utilising this before attempting to "change the world" with your pseudoscience
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

at least you score incredibly high here: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
I answered that already. Go back in the thread and find it.
What thread?
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
Let's. Wrong physics must be removed as well as math that has no physical sense. Everything else remains, including the proper, physically consistent, math.
Ok if we can find out what physical means. Without spacetime or events it would seem pretty tricky.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
@Phys,
And for the record, I think that @Omnibus101 deserves our respect and could be right!

Yeah right !


http://theconvers...ks-49661

Sums it up nicely. Now, I really am off to the pub!

False premise and an unbelievable set of fallacies! Wow! So you accept this $h.t?
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
Personally, I believe that most of the crap on this site is just advertisements for companies and universities of "truth"
@dickdiggins
the first thing i wonder then: why are you here?

then i would wonder: why you would bother to comment considering you would only then be supporting the very "truths" you find so limiting as it is "censorship and the strange attitude that permeates this site like an old lady fart"

.

.

Everyone can see ...
omnidiot
i suggest you consider utilising this before attempting to "change the world" with your pseudoscience
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm


Being incompetent, your only resort is to post irrelevant links. I already said that.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
Everyone can see that in the first and the second set of equations in §10 there's no beta, despite that both sets of equations are written for k moving wrt K at a uniform rectilinear motion. You're done, buddy. Concede.
So their relative velocity is 0 and beta=1. Why should there be? They call it relativity for a reason.
Eliminating 1 as a multiplier in an equation would be allowed by the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't it?
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
Let's. Wrong physics must be removed as well as math that has no physical sense. Everything else remains, including the proper, physically consistent, math.
Ok if we can find out what physical means. Without spacetime or events it would seem pretty tricky.


Physical, for example, is the fact that one body in one system obeys only one law of motion at a time, not two different laws of motion at a time, as Einstein derives. Einstein's derivation is not only non-physical but it's travesty of science.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
omnidiot
I'm not known as being compassionate but I think that's downright unfriendly.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
Physical, for example, is the fact...
That sounds more like an abstraction. Did you major in philosophy? Maybe you're taking Doctor of Philosophy a little to literally.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``Eliminating 1 as a multiplier in an equation would be allowed by the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't it?''

Undobtedly. However, what does that have to do with beta? There's not even a trace of beta in the first and the second set of equation in §10.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2016
F=ma and F'=ma' equations NOT 'the same'; because VARIABLES need 'adjust/inputting' to RECONCILE effects in two frames. :)

Wow... Even RC, finds problem with Omnibus' hypothesis.
Now, THAT is sayin' somethin'...
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``Eliminating 1 as a multiplier in an equation would be allowed by the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't it?''

Undobtedly. However, what does that have to do with beta? There's not even a trace of beta in the first and the second set of equation in §10.
Right. It's been replaced by 1.
Omnibus101
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``Right. It's been replaced by 1.''

Not at all. Nothing connected with beta has been replaced, because there hasn't been beta to begin with.

The second set of eq. in §10, referring to electron at rest with k (I repeat, electron at rest, at rest, at rest, at rest, at rest wrt k; despite the fact that k moves wrt K) represents in k what the first set of eq. refers to an electron at rest (at rest, at rest, at rest) wrt K. This presenting of the first set of eq. in K as second set of eq. in k is done by applying the I postulate (aka the principle of relativity) which contains no beta whatsoever. Get it?
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@RealityCheck: ``F=ma and F'=ma' equations NOT 'the same'; because VARIABLES need 'adjust/inputting' to RECONCILE effects in two frames. :)''

F = ma and F' = ma' are only different in the coordinates they are written in -- F = ma is in K, therefore the coordinates are x,t, while F' = ma' is written in k, therefore the coordinates are x', t'. Nothing else is different. The law is not changes as the I postulate requires.

What's really different is F = ma in K versus F = beta^3ma in K, which Einstein carelessly derives, which leads to an internal contradiction -- F = ma in K and F = beta^3ma in K are two completely different laws of motion, which Einstein derives to be valid simultaneously for one and the same body in one at the same system K. This is impossible.It's an internal contradiction mandating complete removal of Einstein's relativity from physics.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
@OmnibusDick,
You are sir, possibly one of the biggest f*ckwits I have ever come across. Seriously, you do not have a bleeding clue! The whole of 'mainstream' science is quaking in its boots!!!!!! When are you going to unleash this profound misunderstanding upon the world? Phys1 had it right - you are just a master baiter.
Tosspot.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
Everyone can see that in the first and the second set of equations in §10 there's no beta, despite that both sets of equations are written for k moving wrt K at a uniform rectilinear motion. You're done, buddy. Concede.
So their relative velocity is 0 and beta=1. Why should there be? They call it relativity for a reason.


Because the guy is a f*ckwit, who can't do maths. Simple as that.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
the claim Phys1 makes that:

"BHs are a consequence of GRT"



Benni, your 20% brains fail again.
It is not I who makes the claim, I am just the messenger.
It was Schwarzschild, the scientist whom you do not know, who claimed this on the basis of mathematical proof, and it was Einstein, whose work you never set eyes on, who approved it.
Now go steal an Einstein quote from some website. :)


And happened to ask me for advice on! Which I gave. All to do with GR. And fits with every measurement ever made. But, still, let's give the cranks some wriggle room here.
Err, no, let's not. Idiots.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``So their relative velocity is 0 and beta=1. Why should there be? They call it relativity for a reason.''

You have no clue, @Seeker2. First and second set of equations in §10 are transformed by using the I postulate (aka the principle of relativity). The principle of relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with beta. How can I tell you that obvious thing, so that you would understand it and stop repeating your nonsense?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@Phys,
And for the record, I think that @Omnibus101 deserves our respect and could be right!

Yeah right !


http://theconvers...ks-49661

Sums it up nicely. Now, I really am off to the pub!

False premise and an unbelievable set of fallacies! Wow! So you accept this $h.t?


No, sh*t for brains, I rely on evidence. Got any?
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@OmnibusDick,
You are sir, possibly one of the biggest f*ckwits I have ever come across. Seriously, you do not have a bleeding clue! The whole of 'mainstream' science is quaking in its boots!!!!!! When are you going to unleash this profound misunderstanding upon the world? Phys1 had it right - you are just a master baiter.
Tosspot.


Incompetent nobody and a low life is arrogantly trolling and there's no one to curb that. Sign of the times.

But, like I said, I'll take care of that.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2016
So, Call me a crackpot, because all these comments from the truth-brigade are enough to make me religious.


You're a f*cking crackpot OK? Make you feel better? Now, please provide the evidence that your woo is in any way consistent with what is observed. Or, doesn't that matter where you are coming from?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2016
@OmnibusDick,
You are sir, possibly one of the biggest f*ckwits I have ever come across. Seriously, you do not have a bleeding clue! The whole of 'mainstream' science is quaking in its boots!!!!!! When are you going to unleash this profound misunderstanding upon the world? Phys1 had it right - you are just a master baiter.
Tosspot.


Incompetent nobody and a low life is arrogantly trolling and there's no one to curb that. Sign of the times.

But, like I said, I'll take care of that.


And how exactly are you going to do that? When a high school physics student can see that you are totally incompetent? Maths is obviously not your strong point, eejit. So, what are you going to do? Make another website? More youtube shite? Deary me.
Drop it, you clown. You are well out of your depth.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
What's really different is F = ma in K versus F = beta^3ma in K, which Einstein carelessly derives, which leads to an internal contradiction -- F = ma in K and F = beta^3ma in K are two completely different laws of motion, which Einstein derives to be valid simultaneously for one and the same body in one at the same system K. This is impossible.It's an internal contradiction mandating complete removal of Einstein's relativity from physics.

I do Art, not math. So, it's sounding like one frame is INSIDE the other, making the inner one still subject to the motion of the outer, while simultaneously enjoying it's own relative freedom of motion.
Kinda like the "Man walking in a Train" analogy...?
Everyone - feel free to let me know how far off the mark I am on this one...
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Serious readers will notice that there's a lot of despair amongst some here who are the losers in the debate. All losers get very excited and lose control of their emotions and language.

Returning to my crucial argument -- the serious reader should pay attention to these three things, when reading my argument regarding §10:

1. The second set of eq. is obtained from the first set of eq. by applying the Ist postulate (aka the principle of relativity). The first postulate has nothing to do w/ Lorentz transformations and therefore no coefficient beta exists in any of these eq.

2. System k is at uniform rectilinear (translatory) motion wrt system K when the second set of eq. is obtained from the first set of eq.

3. Both sets of equations are for one and the same electron at rest with regard to the respective system -- first set of eq. is for an electron at rest w/ K, while the second set of eq. is for an electron at rest w/ k.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``Eliminating 1 as a multiplier in an equation would be allowed by the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't it?''

Undobtedly. However, what does that have to do with beta? There's not even a trace of beta in the first and the second set of equation in §10.
beta=1 when v=0. It's not rocket science.
Omnibus101
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2016
Seeker2: ``beta=1 when v=0. It's not rocket science.''

Beta doesn't pertain in any way to the crucial first and second set of eq. in §10. I already said that but someone has to listen and not continue with the nonsense.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
The principle of relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with beta. How can I tell you that obvious thing, so that you would understand it and stop repeating your nonsense?
Perhaps you could tell us more about beta. Try that and if that doesn't work you might tell us more about the equations that are about to bring down all of physics.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
Summary for the intelligent reader:

§10:

k is moving wrt K at v = const.

F' = ma' is for a electron at rest wrt k.

F' = ma' transforms for an electron at rest wrt K only as F = ma and nothing else. No beta present, independent of the fact that v = const.

F = beta^3ma, derived in error by Einstein (where beta =/= 1 because k moves wrt K -- see point 1) is in conflict w/ F = ma. One and the same electron in K cannot simultaneously obey two different laws of motion.

This is a fatal flaw of the ``theory'', which requires that Einstein's relativity be abandoned immediately.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
@Seeker2: ``Perhaps you could tell us more about beta. Try that and if that doesn't work you might tell us more about the equations that are about to bring down all of physics.''

No need to tell you anything about beta because the first and the second set of eq. in §10, which are the only way of transforming the eq. in K into k and vice versa, are a result of the application of the I postulate (aka the principle of relativity). The I postulate (the principle of relativity) has nothing to do whatsoever with beta.

Everything after the first and second set of eq. in §10 is in error, while first and second set of eq. are trivial and constitute no discovery at all.

All the above proves that Einstein's relativity is just travesty of science and must be removed immediately from physics.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
...applying the I postulate (aka the principle of relativity) which contains no beta whatsoever. Get it?
Not even for SR? Wow. That I postulate sounds like straight from the Ministry of Truth. Must be powerful stuff.
Omnibus101
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
...applying the I postulate (aka the principle of relativity) which contains no beta whatsoever. Get it?
Not even for SR? Wow. That I postulate sounds like straight from the Ministry of Truth. Must be powerful stuff.


You have no clue, buddy. Why bother?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
Everything after the first and second set of eq. in §10 is in error, while first and second set of eq. are trivial and constitute no discovery at all.

All the above proves that Einstein's relativity is just travesty of science and must be removed immediately from physics.
So just ban §10. Does this mean we have to burn all the textbooks?
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2016
I encourage you to call any expert whatsoever to confront me. You're incompetent and cannot be partners in such dispute. Start calling physicists, astronomers, high energy physics people, anybody. There should be some quality discussion. You're losing so badly that makes me shudder.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
You have no clue, buddy. Why bother?
Right. I have no clue how you remove beta from SR.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
I encourage you to call any expert whatsoever to confront me.
I'm not into keyboard warfare. I'm just a seeker trying to find out where you and your Ministry of Truth are coming from. Buddy.
richdiggins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2016
It doesn't take much research to find another chink in the armour as it were.

An USAF test published in 1986 shows that a field was observed during a more actuate Michelson-Morley experiment.
http://www.nature...0b0.html

"In effect, it appears that in the standing-wave conditions, the waves move at different speeds in opposite directions relative to the apparatus and, as their frequencies are the same, they present different wavelengths in the two directions and so affect the modal spacing."

"Clearly, this research will have interesting implications for the theory of relativity..."

"It may also help us to resolve the large errors found in the global satellite positioning system"

Omnibus101
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
Seeker2: ``Right. I have no clue how you remove beta from SR.''

Have you heard that Einstein's relativity we're discussing (GR is nothing if SR is invalid and SR is invalid) is based on two postulates? If you have, then you should know that the first postulate has absolutely nothing to do w/ beta. Hope you'll come out of this discussion at least with this knowledge.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
Seeker2: ``Right. I have no clue how you remove beta from SR.''

Have you heard that Einstein's relativity we're discussing (GR is nothing if SR is invalid and SR is invalid) is based on two postulates? If you have, then you should know that the first postulate has absolutely nothing to do w/ beta. Hope you'll come out of this discussion at least with this knowledge.

converges at insanity!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
Summary for the intelligent reader:

§10:

k is moving wrt K at v = const.

F' = ma' is for a electron at rest wrt k.

F' = ma' transforms for an electron at rest wrt K only as F = ma and nothing else. No beta present, independent of the fact that v = const.

F = beta^3ma, derived in error by Einstein (where beta =/= 1 because k moves wrt K -- see point 1) is in conflict w/ F = ma. One and the same electron in K cannot simultaneously obey two different laws of motion.

This is a fatal flaw of the ``theory'', which requires that Einstein's relativity be abandoned immediately.

Ever wonder what the source any force really is since you let Einstein define mass and gravity, exactly what was not needed. That's how we got into this illogical sludge, ego!
richdiggins
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016

1) Anyone that insults another person for their expressed viewpoint / thought-experiment is wrong.

2) Calling names prevents any discussion.

3) This site is rapidly degrading with group-think and advertisements. Very similar to what happened to sciencedaily.

4) The true nature of things has perhaps not yet identified.

5) Desperate people do desperate things. e.g., Insults, accusations, childish behavior.

Nobody should feel insulted, nor should they be 'triggered' by others simply expressing an opposing view. Believe it our not, this speaks volumes about the state of our 'education' system.

When did crazy "ranting and name calling" become acceptable behavior?
savvys84
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@sawys84,
here we go, proving einstein wrong
First Paper ' Einstein ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-2.html


That is a FAKE journal!!!!!! LMAO.

says who?
read both papers while you are at it
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
Seeker2: ``Right. I have no clue how you remove beta from SR.''


Have you heard that Einstein's relativity we're discussing (GR is nothing if SR is invalid and SR is invalid) is based on two postulates? If you have, then you should know that the first postulate has absolutely nothing to do w/ beta. Hope you'll come out of this discussion at least with this knowledge.
So now you don't remove beta from postulate 2. Got it.
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
F' = ma' transforms for an electron at rest wrt K only as F = ma and nothing else. No beta present, independent of the fact that v = const.
How do you get F=anything when v=constant?
ProfRaccoon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
"Einstein's" relativity can be traced back to Waldemar Voigt's idea that we CANNOT detect motion relative to the TEM wave medium. The Voigt coordinate transform expressed the Doppler shift of TEM wave signals in case the relative velocity of the TEM wave medium is undetectable. H.A. Lorentz turned the Voight transform into a symmetric coordinate transform (same 'absolute' Doppler frequency shift no matter if light source and observer move towards each other or move away from each other), so "Einstein came up with relativity theory" it is a falsification of history. The kicker is this: Voigt's original assumption has been falsified by many TEM wave velocity measurement experiments that clearly show anisotropy in the velocity of TEM waves in vacuum, such that the relative velocity (magnitude and direction) with respect to the TEM wave medium has/can been detected, see papers by Reginald Cahill.
Omnibus101
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@ProfRacoon: It doesn't matter who was the first to put forth this ridiculous ``theory''. It's internally contradictory and therefore must be removed from physics without a trace. Least of all does it derive Е = mc², present classically in laws such as Ampere's law.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
@ProfRacoon: It doesn't matter who was the first to put forth this ridiculous ``theory''. It's internally contradictory and therefore must be removed from physics without a trace. Least of all does it derive Е = mc², present classically in laws such as Ampere's law.
So turn in those physics books before you get caught and vanish without a trace right along with them :(
BackBurner
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
A huge number of comments on this, but the whole problem was correctly dismissed by billpress11 in the first post.

Observation doesn't support the Big Bang/Finite Universe hypothesis. Assuming an infinite universe, all our observations of light are consistent.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
F' = ma' transforms for an electron at rest wrt K only as F = ma and nothing else. No beta present, independent of the fact that v = const.
How do you get F=anything when v=constant?


Well, a miracle occurs there. Photons have no mass, but for some reason (unknown to me) have momentum, which is transferable (see "photon sails" and "solar wind"). The actual theory of how all this hangs together isn't quite ready for prime time in my understanding, however we might abandon the idea of massles photons imparting momentum in favor of protons and neutrons moving at sub-C speeds? Just a suggestion.

Oh, and yes I understand photons have no rest mass, but somehow mystically obtain mass-like characteristics when accelerated to C. Magic by any other measure I believe.

Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
Observation doesn't support the Big Bang/Finite Universe hypothesis. Assuming an infinite universe, all our observations of light are consistent.
So you have an agenda. Space being infinite, of course, spacetime expansion would seem improbable. Better yet you could dismiss the observations by denying spacetime even exists, as we like to do at this site.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
Photons have no mass, but for some reason (unknown to me) have momentum, which is transferable (see "photon sails" and "solar wind"). The actual theory of how all this hangs together isn't quite ready for prime time in my understanding, however we might abandon the idea of massles photons imparting momentum in favor of protons and neutrons moving at sub-C speeds? Just a suggestion.
There is a theory going around that neutrons are made up of protons and electrons. So who knows?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2016
@sawys84,
here we go, proving einstein wrong
First Paper ' Einstein ....'

http://www.iosrjo...n-2.html


That is a FAKE journal!!!!!! LMAO.

says who?


Says the link I gave you. Try reading it. There is this invention called 'Google'. Type 'IOSR journal fake' into it and you will see that it is listed by respectable organisations as predatory/ fake.
It isn't a real journal. Probably some guy sat in a flat somewhere in India coining it in. The board of editors is fake. It's a sham.
If Seeker wants to publish his Pi = 3 hypothesis, that will be the place to do it! You can bet that there is no peer review. Either there or vixra, Physics Letters, Progress in Physics, Bentham Open Astronomy etc, etc.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
Summary for the intelligent reader:

§10:

k is moving wrt K at v = const.

F' = ma' is for a electron at rest wrt k.

F' = ma' transforms for an electron at rest wrt K only as F = ma and nothing else. No beta present, independent of the fact that v = const.



"k is moving wrt K at v = const." . Wrong.

k. K & the electron are at t = 0, x = 0. By definition, they are not moving in relation to each other at that time. That is what you can't seem to get through your head.

I assume you must be good at something, maybe stamp collecting or pole dancing, and I would suggest that whatever it is, that you stick to it.

Accounts
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
@Omibus re: "(save the stupid addition by Einstein).". My most sincerest apologies, I did not immediately recognize you as a useless troll. Happy stupidness to you.

And Maxwell still has a silver hammer.
Accounts
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level where they have much more experience than you". - somebody
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: The second set of eq. in §10 is for k moving wrt K. How was that F' = ma' obtained? the answer to that question will set you free from your confusion.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level where they have much more experience than you". - somebody


And the highlighted part of this quote from Darwin:
"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: *****but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge*****: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2016
Hang on to my argument and don't allow the trolls to sidetrack. As seen, my argument takes down in one blow the whole edifice of Einstein's travesty and all the trolls are beside themselves. Fun to watch them. Mildly.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
Serious readers will notice that there's a lot of despair amongst some here

Only those who try to argue with you. To them I say: Never wrestle with a pig. The pig likes it and you will get dirty.


So, you failed but that doesn't mean anything to you. Have you no decency?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: The second set of eq. in §10 is for k moving wrt K. How was that F' = ma' obtained? the answer to that question will set you free from your confusion.


No it isn't. Go away.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
Check this out:

In §10, k is moving wrt K at v = const, when the principle of relativity is applied. This is clear because the second set of eq. in §10, which is for electron at rest wrt k, is for k moving wrt K. Pay attention -- k is moving wrt K and yet, the second set of eq. in §10 arrives from the first set of eq. in §10, despite the fact that the first set of eq. in §10 is written for an electron at rest w/ K (the same way as the electron in k is at rest w/ k).
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2016
Hang on to my argument and don't allow the trolls to sidetrack. As seen, my argument takes down in one blow the whole edifice of Einstein's travesty and all the trolls are beside themselves. Fun to watch them. Mildly.


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Says anonymous, mathematically challenged internet troll.
Classic. Do you seriously think your misunderstandings are in any way going to alter one of the most studied, and verified theories ever? I've seen some delusional cranks in my time, but you really are top of the pile.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: The second set of eq. in §10 is for k moving wrt K. How was that F' = ma' obtained? the answer to that question will set you free from your confusion.


No it isn't. Go away.


You've got to be kiddin'.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
Check this out:

In §10, k is moving wrt K at v = const, when the principle of relativity is applied. This is clear because the second set of eq. in §10, which is for electron at rest wrt k, is for k moving wrt K. Pay attention -- k is moving wrt K and yet, the second set of eq. in §10 arrives from the first set of eq. in §10, despite the fact that the first set of eq. in §10 is written for an electron at rest w/ K (the same way as the electron in k is at rest w/ k).


WRONG. As has been explained both in words, and by links to graphics for dummies.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``Do you seriously think your misunderstandings are in any way going to alter one of the most studied, and verified theories ever?''

Yes, they will because they are not misunderstandings but truth, as seen. While you will only remain an embarrassment to yourself.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``WRONG. As has been explained both in words, and by links to graphics for dummies.''

No, it isn't. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's an ugly sight.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
If Seeker wants to publish his Pi = 3 hypothesis, that will be the place to do it!
Please. Why are you dumping on me? What did I ever do to you?
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``Do you seriously think your misunderstandings are in any way going to alter one of the most studied, and verified theories ever?''

Yes, they will because they are not misunderstandings but truth, as seen. While you will only remain an embarrassment to yourself.

The point is the study of nature, not theory.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 29, 2016
OK, OK, this is something like Doyle's Tweedledee and Tweedledum, I prefer Yakko,Wakko, and Dot! I think Pinky and the Brain has it right! Dot is the genius!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2016
WRONG. As has been explained both in words, and by links to graphics
@Jonesdave and anyone else interested

at this point there is a distinct pattern of behaviour and we can narrow down omnidiot to be a part of one of the following categories:
1- psych investigation (much like studies that include intentionally trolling for the sake of determining information)

2- intentional trolling (what better topic to intentionally troll anyone who actually knows anything about physics?)

3- delusional megalomaniac

in cases 2 & 3 we should consider posting relevant information that refutes the troll and ignore further posts

in the case of 1 we should consider the implications of the content and why scientifically literate people are being targeted

regardless: the evidence stands above - omnidiot failed to present evidence and argues from ignorance/delusion
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
@Captain Stumpy" ``failed to present evidence''

Quite the contrary. I presented conclusive evidence, showing conflict between what the I postulate requires (admitted also by Einstein) and what has been subsequently derived. I can't think of a single instance in science (even amongst the rejected theories) where a ``theory'' based on such blatant internal contradiction has been admitted to gain so much ground in the official science. Today's theoretical physics is nothing else but pseudoscience, having such travesty as its basis.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2016
@Captain Stumpy" ``failed to present evidence''

Quite the contrary. I presented conclusive evidence, showing conflict between what the I postulate requires (admitted also by Einstein) and what has been subsequently derived. I can't think of a single instance in science (even amongst the rejected theories) where a ``theory'' based on such blatant internal contradiction has been admitted to gain so much ground in the official science. Today's theoretical physics is nothing else but pseudoscience, having such travesty as its basis.


No offence mate, but you are a f*ckwit of the highest order.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
If Seeker wants to publish his Pi = 3 hypothesis, that will be the place to do it!
Please. Why are you dumping on me? What did I ever do to you?


Sorry, Seeker, it was sarcasm, based on a previous post you made about (tongue in cheek) Pi = 3! Wasn't aimed at you, as I knew you don't actually believe Pi = 3. No offence. Sometimes words don't come across as intended on the interweb.

EDIT: Maybe it wasn't you who made the joke; in which case, I apologise further. Maybe it was Phys1. Can't be arsed checking now.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``WRONG. As has been explained both in words, and by links to graphics for dummies.''

No, it isn't. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's an ugly sight.

You are such a bad joke, Omnibus101.
Who do you think you are, Napoleon ?


I expect Napoleon was crap at science, too.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
WRONG. As has been explained both in words, and by links to graphics
@Jonesdave and anyone else interested

at this point there is a distinct pattern of behaviour and we can narrow down omnidiot to be a part of one of the following categories:
1- psych investigation (much like studies that include intentionally trolling for the sake of determining information)

2- intentional trolling (what better topic to intentionally troll anyone who actually knows anything about physics?)

3- delusional megalomaniac

in cases 2 & 3 we should consider posting relevant information that refutes the troll and ignore further posts

in the case of 1 we should consider the implications of the content and why scientifically literate people are being targeted

regardless: the evidence stands above - omnidiot failed to present evidence and argues from ignorance/delusion


Not the first, and won't be the last. They all lack intelligence and evidence though, as usual. Sad.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2016
@Omnibus101
You haven't got a leg to stand on. No paper, just some obscure website.
You have no credit with anyone here since your account was initiated only a few days ago.
In such conditions the best strategy is persuasion and bridge building
and the worst strategy is what you are doing: bullying.
In the end however, no strategy will work since you are totally wrong.
Forget physics because, man, you suck.
Be happy is my final advice . :)


POTD.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``lack ... evidence''

Not true. I gave ample and conclusive evidence.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2016
@jonesdave: ``lack ... evidence''

Not true. I gave ample and conclusive evidence.


Err, no you didn't. You just gave us your total misunderstanding of a theory that has been cited, examined and verified, possibly more than any other theory ever written. Including by Nobel Prize winners.
And the likes of myself, and others on here, who are possibly not even qualified in that field, can see that you are wrong. Give it up. You are sir, an idiot. Can't put it more kindly than that. Stick to whatever it is that you are good at.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
I encourage you to call any expert whatsoever to confront me.
Of the article's topic it has been stated in standard, well referenced and verifiable fashion, "Improved observations will soon vindicate or disprove this model." Of your arrogant, disrespectful, and flat out erroneous ranting there is already decades of careful observations to disprove your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam.
showing conflict between what the I postulate requires
You've got some conflict in your postulater all right – "I postulate, therefore I'm right" when it should be, "I think, therefore I am"
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, it'd be nice if it's easy as 1, 2, 3... I think there's a 2-b (and #1 belongs in this category): organized intentional trolling. I say that because of the recurring theme this one has:
Today's theoretical physics is nothing else but pseudoscience, having such travesty as its basis.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think we can expect a lot more of this as Don Fascist and the Swamp Monsters take the reins, especially wrt things like climate science, "enhanced" interrogations, and fortune-teller clairvoyant-like "preemptive" aggression and incarcerations.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@Protoplasmix: I showed the ``theory'' is internally contradictory. Ergo, it is invalid prior to any attempts for experimental testing.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@Protoplasmix: I showed the ``theory'' is internally contradictory. Ergo, it is invalid prior to any attempts for experimental testing.
You showed no such thing, it's your perception of the theory which suffers from internal contradiction. Quite a few nice folks, and a bunch of not quite as nice folks have all shown you the trouble with your perception. Results of a huge body of experiments show you're wrong, and thousands of very bright minds over the years have taken the theory to levels you're incapable of seeing. You'll either see the light or remain in your darkness, but you won't likely convince anyone of anything. All that remains is for us to see if we should preface "idiot" with "stubborn" when we refer to you.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
@Protoplasmix: I showed the ``theory'' is internally contradictory. Ergo, it is invalid prior to any attempts for experimental testing.
So obviously we don't need experimental testing for our valid theories, as determined by the Ministry of Truth. Thereby completely eliminating the need for experimental testing.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
All that remains is for us to see if we should preface "idiot" with "stubborn" when we refer to you.
Maybe just an opportunist looking for a top sciencetist position in the new Republican administration.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
So obviously we don't need experimental testing for our valid theories, as determined by the Ministry of Truth. Thereby completely eliminating the need for experimental testing.
Just think all the savings we could make in drug testing.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
No, we don't need experimental testing for Einstein's relativity because, as seen, it invalidates itself due to its internally contradictory nature, which is observed prior to any experimental test whatsoever.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
and #1 belongs in this category
@proto
yes and no - sometimes, in order to learn about how people think, there has to be a lot of pushing of boundaries

having said that, i don't think the omnidiot is part of any psyche research except in their delusional world where they, like all pseudoscience D-K posters, are the "hero" who changes the world (example: see RC, reg, johan, zeph, etc)
I hope I'm wrong, but I think we can expect a lot more of this
I definitely think you're right about that, especially considering the lack of moderation and the (now widely known) knowledge that this is a haven for pseudoscience cranks to post their crap, spread it world wide and "legitimize" it

of course, the site has a means to combat this (many have sent a means to MOD essentially for free) so it now goes back to: why doesn't the site want moderation?

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2016
@omnidiot
@Protoplasmix: Can you say in your words where is ``the trouble with [my] perception''?
i can answer this, if you care to learn:
you make a claim
we don't need experimental testing for Einstein's relativity because, as seen, it invalidates itself due to its internally contradictory nature
however, this is directly refuted by the evidence, which is:
the predictability of the Theory, combined with the experimental evidence, topped off by the repeated constant validation through other parties not affiliated with the origin
https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

so, it is relativity: About 220,000 results (0.06 sec) on google scholar alone

and omnidiot results for falsification (or internal contradition): zero results

evidence overwhelmingly proves you're a delusional idiot seeking attention without a shred of evidence to prove anything except a probable basis for an insanity plea
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2016
@Proto.......do you really understand why clowns like Omni exist & spend so much time trying to advance his handiwork in funny farm science? It's solely because he reads so much widespread contradictory disinformation about WHAT IS advanced by Einstein in GR that is factually absent from the thesis.

Omni frequently hears & reads so much disinformation about the content of GR from unreputable sources that he thinks the lie repeated often enough is reality, so he won't read GR for himself, he thinks there is no need to because loud foul mouthed clowns like you exist.

I'd be willing to bet you Omni does not believe in the existence of BHs. And do you know why? It's because he believes BH Theory is founded in GR, but what Omni, like you, do not know is that there is zero content anywhere in GR where Einstein discusses or lays forth any theory postulating the existence of BHs.

@Omni......hey, do you believe in BHs? Do you believe BH Theory is discoverable in Einstein's GR?
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 29, 2016
No, we don't need experimental testing for Einstein's relativity because, as seen, it invalidates itself due to its internally contradictory nature, which is observed prior to any experimental test whatsoever.

Of course. No approval by the Ministry of Truth means no funding.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
why doesn't the site want moderation?
Maybe the fear of taking away first amendment rights?
arcmetal
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
@BackBurner
There is a simple explanation to the 'horizon problem', the BB never happened and the universe is infinite in size and age and recycles itself as far as we can be determined at this time. That could be why the universe appears nearly the same in every direction.
-- billpress11

A huge number of comments on this, but the whole problem was correctly dismissed by billpress11 in the first post.

Observation doesn't support the Big Bang/Finite Universe hypothesis. Assuming an infinite universe, all our observations of light are consistent. -- BackBurner

The horizon problem is going to only get worse for the BB theory after the Webb telescope becomes operational.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
Maybe the fear of taking away first amendment rights?
@seeker
i don't see this

no one is threatening their right to free speech or belief - only that they substantiate their claim per the necessity of argument from evidence, one of the foundations of science

that requires legitimate source material that is science, not pseudoscience, hence the former rule, now guideline of
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)
there is no threat there to the 1st amendment

the only reason pseudoscience posters actually post here is to attempt (in their eyes) to lend credibility to their argument through association with legitimate science news

moderation keeps the stupidity from influencing the malleable, young or those who aren't capable of discernment
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: ``the predictability of the Theory, combined with the experimental evidence''

Absolutely not. The ``theory'' is internally contradictory. Therefore, it can predict exactly nothing and can never ever enjoy validation through experimental evidence. No experiment can prove that 1 equals 2, as the ``theory'' derives.

So, that's out. Try something else to refute my argument.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2016
@Benni: Anybody who claims to have validated experimentally Einstein's relativity, is a charlatan.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@Protoplasmix: Can you say in your words where is ``the trouble with [my] perception''?
Not without repeating myself and the comments of others. You have literally hundreds of comments in this thread to choose from. Have fun.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@Protoplasmix: ``Not without repeating myself and the comments of others. You have literally hundreds of comments in this thread to choose from. Have fun.''

Easy escape, ha? Have you no self respect? There are people reading this thread besides the two of us. Don't you feel embarrassment for not being able to defend your words?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
and #1 belongs in this category
@proto
yes and no - sometimes, in order to learn about how people think, there has to be a lot of pushing of boundaries.
Right, I only included it there because it qualifies as "organized."

@Beani, compared to Omtrollibus101, you're gonna have to pick your game up a little bit, bud, he makes you look like a wannabe.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
No, we don't need experimental testing for Einstein's relativity because, as seen, it invalidates itself due to its internally contradictory nature, which is observed prior to any experimental test whatsoever.

you are correct. but to open the eyes of dimwits, it is necessary to lay experimenal evidence


You're problem with that statement, is that it HAS been verified experimentally and observationally. Countless times. Or don't you read anything other than fake Indian journals?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016

hey google jockey. read both papers and then argue about the contents in them, instead of googling about the peer reviewed journal where only 25 percent of submitted manuscripts are accepted after peer review


Hey, shitforbrains, fake journal = fake journal. If the paper had anything of merit to say, it would not be in a fake journal. Hence the only reason it got published. Understand? Ergo, for the hard of thinking, they could claim anything they like, and nobody is going to check those claims. It is worthless. And I sure as hell am not going to do their peer review for them. Might as well have 'published' it on Dunderdolts.misinfo, for what impact it'll make.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy – Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart and they *have* mods – the problem there is attributed specifically to the "--r/The_Donald community" … I'm guessing this is happening in a lot of forums, pretty much rampant in social media, they're antiscience, antisocial, and anti- anything else that gets in their way, even anti- things they're *afraid* will get in their way.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
Hey, shitforbrains, fake journal = fake journal. If the paper had anything of merit to say, it would not be in a fake journal. Hence the only reason it got published. Understand? Ergo, for the hard of thinking, they could claim anything they like, and nobody is going to check those claims. It is worthless. And I sure as hell am not going to do their peer review for them. Might as well have 'published' it on Dunderdolts.misinfo, for what impact it'll make.


Having said that, here is some peer review: the author of the paper in the fake journal says: "Time dilates or *slows down* and not speed up, as you rise above the surface of the Earth..."

Whereas: "General relativity predicts an additional effect, in which an increase in gravitational potential due to altitude *speeds the clocks up*. That is, clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth's surface."
https://en.wikipe...periment
That's all the peer review needed. Trash.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2016
^^^^^^^And that is a lesson in why peer review is needed, and important. Otherwise we end up with all sorts of crap masquerading as science. Why do you think Vixra exists? Precisely so that idiots like Crothers, and others, can get their erroneous works published. Which is why such journals are not taken seriously.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
^^^^^^^And that is a lesson in why peer review is needed, and important. Otherwise we end up with all sorts of crap masquerading as science.
Peer review is the answer. By that I mean put it out there and review it. Not censor it. You don't cure a disease by ignoring it. Demand the physical evidence or reveal this crap and help these dimwits. Find out about this crap before it spreads like a disease. Try critical thinking. If they're learning disabled or have an agenda then put them on the ignore list.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
^^^^^^^And that is a lesson in why peer review is needed, and important. Otherwise we end up with all sorts of crap masquerading as science.
Peer review is the answer. By that I mean put it out there and review it. Not censor it. You don't cure a disease by ignoring it. Demand the physical evidence or reveal this crap and help these dimwits. Find out about this crap before it spreads like a disease. Try critical thinking. If they're learning disabled or have an agenda then put them on the ignore list.


Very true. However, to listen to most of these pseudoscience promoters, their work isn't published due to a global conspiracy between scientists. A bit like herding cats, in my view! To them, it's all about scientists protecting their funding. It never occurs to them that what they believe is simply not scientifically valid, and either would be, or already has been, shown to be wrong.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
It never occurs to them that what they believe is simply not scientifically valid, and either would be, or already has been, shown to be wrong.
I can understand that. May be a learning disability. Or a critical thinking problem. Definitely a challenge for all of us.
Manfred Particleboard
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2016

"All the above proves that Einstein's relativity is just travesty of science and must be removed immediately from physics."

It's that statement, repeated again and again which makes you an idiot. It's the emotional demand of a petulant child up against one of the most powerful scientific theories of the modern era that makes you a complete lunatic. It's not being derogatory or unnecessarily hostile, it's in same way as we regard someone who insists on driving the wrong way on a freeway is an idiot.

But suppose you are completely right, you still haven't addressed the problem with all those situations where the mathematical logic of SR seems to work. How do you resolve the problem of being right and yet GPS, particle accelerators, space communication with probes, the physics behind the transit of mercury- and the list goes on...all seem to work with uncanny precision?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
To them, it's all about scientists protecting their funding.

The funny thing is: In reality, one sure fire way of NOT getting any funding is to submit a proposal for researching something that has already been done.

(And one 100% proven method of NOT getting published is trying to publish something someone else has already done)
Gigel
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
577 comments. I hope you are not still fighting the same troll. If you do, you are raising his blood cholesterol to dangerous levels.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Mafred Parrticleboard: ``How do you resolve the problem of being right and yet GPS, particle accelerators, space communication with probes,''

I answered that numerous times. Time-dilation is physically impossible because it violates absolute truths. Corrections in the GPS are based on the trivial fact that signals have final speed.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
Corrections in the GPS are based on the trivial fact that signals have final speed.

What does 'final' speed mean? Do you mean 'finite' (if so: then yes: light has a finite speed - so what?)
The finite speed is why GPS works at all because what you are using to make your positioning is the time difference between the signals from multiple sources (if the speed of light were infinite that time difference would always be zero...so you could never tell where you are)

But the signal is distorted because of relative motion of you to the satellites (SR) and also the curvature difference of spacetime between where you are and they are (GR) - and THAT is where you need to correct for relativistic effects. Because if you didn't then your position read would drift quite heavily (several kilometers per day)

Time-dilation is physically impossible

Ya know - calling something physically impossible that is observed is sorta stupid, don'tcha think?
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@antialias_physorg: ``final'', of course, is a typo. Replace it w/ ``finite''. And, no, nothing is distorted and there's no curvature. Also, like I said, time-dilation is physically impossible. It contradicts absolute truths. Anybody who claims to have proved experimentally time-dilation, is a charlatan.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
It contradicts absolute truths.

And these truths are....? Made up by whom, exactly? Or do you derive these from somewhere? If so: from where? (Please be specific. With the corresponding math)

Just your 'say so' ain't good enough.

Not by a long shot.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@antialias_physorg: For instance, the definition of velocity is an absolute truth. Will mention more absolute truths if you don't get it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
I'm not asking you to name them. I'm asking you where you get fronm that they are 'absolute' (and no: velocity isn't an absolute. Why on Earth would you think that? There's any number of experiments that show it isn't)
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
I said ``definition of velocity'', not ``velocity''.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
A definitioin is a definition. You can define anything as anything else. I can define "graftisul" as "mhananana" and it would be an absolute definition. So what? Just making up a definition as 'absolute' means nothing.
Stuff has to have relevance to the real world. If your absolute definition has no relevance to the real world (such as 'absolute velocity'...or even 'absolute truth') then it's just so much brainfarts.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
Peer-review in this case means to let the fox guard the chicken. No peer-review whatsoever, applied to the deserved criticism of Einstein's relativity, must be allowed.

The only way for the truth to prevail is by having it established by a court of law, the way the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 against teaching creationism in schools.

Sadly, only the ruling of a judge will remove from science crackpots who deny that the second set of equations in §10 are written for k moving wrt K for an electron at rest wrt k and that this set reflects the requirement of the principle of relativity to have the equations for an electron at rest wrt K unchanged in k,

Further, only a judge can remove from science the crackpots who deny that the above is in conflict with what is derived thereafter and that that fact mandates the removal of the pseudoscientific Einstein's relativity from being taught in all educational institutions.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
I answered that numerous times.
You sure did, and for all to see. Too bad you get no points for wrong answers.
Time-dilation is physically impossible because it violates absolute truths.
You consistently violate what are essentially algebraic "truths" related to simple coordinate transformation from one inertial frame to another, and no one accuses you of being physically impossible. Your violations are only verbal, though, and the cosmos works just fine without your understanding. You couldn't violate SR if you wanted to, nor could you suggest any experiments of your own to prove such a thing is possible – as a matter of record, you've already stated experiments are unnecessary, clearly illustrating just how deficient you are even in very basic scientific methodology. You've even hurled veiled threats at people about consequences and courts. You've distinguished yourself in a bad way, troll.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
@antialias_physorg: The definition of velocity cannot be anything else. It's an absolute truth. Period.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
The definition of velocity cannot be anything else. It's an absolute truth. Period.

Because you say so? Forgive me for being somewhat less than impressed with this sort of 'logic' (and I use the word 'logic' in the most liberal sense, here. I.e. you are stark raving mad if you think what you are making is any kind of cogent argument)

Nah. You're a nutcase. I think I'll take Hat1208's advice and put you on ignore.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@Protoplasmix: ``You've even hurled veiled threats at people about consequences and courts.''

Unfortunately, this is the only way to deal with the ugly stupidities you're harming the society with. There can be no rational discussion with the likes of you. None whatsoever.

This is how the ugly stupidity creationism was dealt with -- the Supreme Court kicked in and removed it from being taught in schools.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
@omnidiot the pseudoscience troll
This is how the ugly stupidity creationism was dealt with -- the Supreme Court kicked in and removed it from being taught in schools.
ROTFLMFAO

glad you brought this up!
per the very, very specific federal rules of evidence, your argument would also be kicked out as pseudoscience because you do not in any way adhere to the scientific method
https://www.law.c...ules/fre

"Judge William Overton handed down a decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that creation science is religion and is simply not science"
see:McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 5 January 1982)

per that definition and the regulations that determine what constitutes science in the FRE, your argument is simply a claim and has no evidenciary value, as i tried to point out

- or can't you read?
http://www.readingbear.org/

LMFAO

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
To All Concerned: It is not a challenge to "all of us". Hit the ignore button. I did it after reading Omnibus101's first post. There is nothing of scientific value here. Just like; Benni, hawkingsbrother, jonesdave, and all the other religious trolls whose only purpose in life is to disrupt or act out. They are idiots, plain and simple.


Hey there hatboy, speak for yourself when identifying the "religious trolls" here.

I spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering not counting the Continuing Education courses in later years. Yet I'm willing to put with foul mouthed acolytes like you & Proto, Stumpo, Shavera, etc because the lot of you do not find it embarrassing to come to a science website & makeup all kinds of outrageous claims about what Einstein established in SR & GR (BH fiction), yet you wonder why Omni thinks GR is such a pile of crapola, I don't blame him for thinking so, I blame namecalling neophytes like you.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart and they *have* mods
@Proto
wow... it's not surprising though, considering the intense polarization of the nation during the election

what surprises me more than anything is that citizens actually believed that the election choice had to be one or the other when there were 6 people running

meh
I'm guessing this is happening in a lot of forums
it tried to start in one of my fav's but the MODS locked that crap out early on... ended up losing what i considered a friend in one conversation though, and it didn't even have to do with trump

some people are just too emotional and can't stand it that people have opinions that differ from theirs - hell, i was threatened right along with the site!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
the lot of you do not find it embarrassing to come to a science website & makeup all kinds of outrageous claims
@benji
you mean like this?
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...als.html

the problem with you, benji, is that you make a lot of "claims" but you never are able to back them up, like your mad math skills fail above, or here:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

or your plagiarizing here: http://phys.org/n...dio.html

and lets not get into your epic fail WRT computers, internet and PM's versus site messages!

LOL
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
Just like; Benni, hawkingsbrother, jonesdave, and all the other religious trolls whose only purpose in life is to disrupt or act out
Huh? Of those three individuals, not one is at all like the others, and jonesdave is an astronomer. The trouble with Omnibus is pretty simple, he's an addict. Addicted to stupidity. With some intense self-examination and rigorous honesty there's a 50/50 chance he can be helped.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016
@Hat1208,
...........jonesdave, and all the other religious trolls


As a lifelong committed atheist I resent that. I'd love to know where you got that idea from!
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Thanks for the FRE link you're providing the second time. First of all, can you point out in the FRE exactly where they determine what constitutes science? Also, it is unfathomable how showing errors directly in his paper, or any paper for that matter, has no evidenciary value. There are retractions of scientific papers made and published in scientific journals all the time if the author himself or someone else finds an error in the paper. Are you aware of that? How com that's considered evidence but the fact at hand would not be evidence?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016
@Omniloon,
Corrections in the GPS are based on the trivial fact that signals have final speed.


Bollocks. As is abundantly clear from the GPS specs I linked to, what seems an eternity ago.
And also:
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977),...... there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day."
http://www.leapse...vity.htm

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: What you're referencing is a creation of charlatans. Plain and simple.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
@omnidiot the pseudoscience TROLL
First of all, can you point out in the FRE exactly where they determine what constitutes science?
considering your above diatribes and refusal to even acknowledge evidence over your overly high opinion of yourself?

first lets see what your reading & comprehension levels are
read the following: McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 5 January 1982)

it is referenced

no point in continuing discourse with you if you can't actually demonstrate the ability to read or comprehend basic english, so give the above a try first

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Your last quote is about religion vs. science and I can't agree more with the Supreme Court. In the case at hand, however, the lack of logic in Einstein's relativity is not science. It's not religion (although one mache challenge even this assertion, observing the devout adherents to the crackpotness (new word) of said ``relativity'') and yet it isn't science. Nonsense, even if it isn't religion, isn't science.

Where is the definition of science in the FRE regulations you cited, other than opposing it to religion?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: What you're referencing is a creation of charlatans. Plain and simple.


No, it is the actual results of what occurred, you idiot. As observed. And has been observed consistently by many scientists and engineers for nigh on 40 years. Do you think they are all charlatans? That they are all involved in some sort of conspiracy? Sorry, but you really are at the higher end of the more delusional cranks I have ever come across.
Make an idiotic claim, based on an inability to understand the maths of a thought experiment, and then dismiss the whole of a very large body of work that confirms SR & GR, by calling every single person, ever involved in those tests, a charlatan! Talk about delusional!
Have you ever played Russian roulette? I'd be happy to teach you the rules. You have to play alone, though.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: As a matter of fact, not all cases being considered by courts are concerned with science and with defining what science is. Courts rule on the basis of evidence, especially when it's in you face, written in black on white, on a piece of paper. Courts rule all the time on forging documents on the face of it and they don't consider that just claims but factual evidence. Same is here.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: You're the one who doesn't understand a simple argument and, like I said, this can be established only by a court ruling. There's no way to reason with an irrational person like you, especially that incompetent.

I reiterate, anyone who claims to have proved time-dilation experimentally is a charlatan.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: As a matter of fact, not all cases being considered by courts are concerned with science and with defining what science is. Courts rule on the basis of evidence, especially when it's in you face, written in black on white, on a piece of paper. Courts rule all the time on forging documents on the face of it and they don't consider that just claims but factual evidence. Same is here.


Except that your 'evidence' is based on an inability to understand what you are seeing. And your 'evidence' has been disproven countless times. Nobody would ever take you the least bit seriously. Which is why you have to 'publish' on an anonymous webpage! Prove me wrong, and submit it to a respectable physics journal. I'm sure they could with a good laugh now and again.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: You're the one who doesn't understand a simple argument and, like I said, this can be established only by a court ruling. There's no way to reason with an irrational person like you, especially that incompetent.

I reiterate, anyone who claims to have proved time-dilation experimentally is a charlatan.


And you are an idiot. Those very many people have actual evidence to back them up. Independently verifiable. You have diddly. Your 'evidence' is not even within the realm of science. It solely exists on a webpage that any loon could create. As proven.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: ``Except that your 'evidence' is based on an inability to understand what you are seeing. And your 'evidence' has been disproven countless times.''

No, it isn't but you're not in a position to know. You're simply incompetent and that's all.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2016
@Omnipotent
Anybody who claims to have proved experimentally time-dilation, is a charlatan.
Has anyone experimentally disproved it?
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: ``And you are an idiot. Those very many people have actual evidence to back them up. Independently verifiable.''

No, they don't because time-dilation violates absolute truths. These are charlatans and you believe them because you're incompetent. Charlatans prey on the gullible and uneducated such as you.
Accounts
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Omnibus (because he's so obnoxious) QUOTE No, they don't because time-dilation violates absolute truths. ENDQUOTE.

Absolute? OMG someone has discovered an ABSOLUTE TRUTH? RIng the bells. Ready the Nobel. René Descartes is rolling over in his grave. Cogito Ergo Sum? Obvious wrong. (Or so Omni deludes himself).
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
"if the speed of light has always been the same, then not enough time has passed for light to have travelled to the edge of the universe, and 'even out' the energy"

Ergo the speed of light has not always been the same. Not only does it vary with time it also varies with position. Else gravitational lensing would not be possible. Or any type of lensing for that matter. Just had to get that off my chest. Thanks for your understanding.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: ``And you are an idiot. Those very many people have actual evidence to back them up. Independently verifiable.''

No, they don't because time-dilation violates absolute truths. These are charlatans and you believe them because you're incompetent. Charlatans prey on the gullible and uneducated such as you.


And at that point, it is obvious to anyone viewing this thread that you have lost not only the argument, but your marbles! "I am right, and the masses of evidence against my claims is all due to a massive conspiracy! Everybody except me is incompetent!"
Game over. You've lost. Thanks for the laughs. Close the door on your way out. Go get an education.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@jonesdave: ``that you have lost not only the argument''

On the contrary, it's obvious to anyone with a clear mind that it is the crackpots like you that lost the argument. Have no shame? It's embarrassing to watch you twitch.
Omnibus101
Nov 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@omnidiot the pseudoscience TROLL
Where is the definition of science...
so what you're saying is: you're illiterate and you can't read
gotcha!
thanks for validating that
not all cases being considered by courts are concerned with science and with defining what science is
never said they were, illiterate-girl

in order for a legal document to make a distinction between two things there must be a description of said items being distinguished between, and as such, it defines, for the purpose of not only clarification but also for precedent, the parameters required for something to be considered science

if this isn't called out in the specific adjudication order it must then be referenced to insure accuracy, much like the requirements for any scientific argument

there is no need to continue discourse as you've demonstrated above that you're demonstrably illiterate and you refuse to acknowledge evidence that is painfully obvious and specifically referenced

Omnibus101
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Don't change my words. I asked you to show me where is the definition of science in the FRE regulations you cited, other than opposing it to religion?

It appears, you cannot show me how FRE defines science, without resorting to differentiating it from religion, and are relegating to manipulations and sidetracking.
Manfred Particleboard
3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2016

No, they don't because time-dilation violates absolute truths. These are charlatans and you believe them because you're incompetent. Charlatans prey on the gullible and uneducated such as you.


When you were asked to explain the inconsistency of being right while the mathematics of SR still worked, your answer, is that it is a hoax. Everyone involved with satellite communications and positioning, the software design- the testing , the upgrades the integration of systems....all one big deliberate lie. From so many varying and competing consortiums, all secretly in on a big lie and one huge waste of time and effort just to keep Einstein happy. Not to mention the nuclear physicists involved in the building and operation of some of the most expensive pieces of hardware ever constructed.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Manfred Particleboard: Correct, across the board. All is false. How it happened to fool the public is another story. Employees do what they're told to do. Otherwise, they'll lose their job. Even the management isn't to blame. The charlatans to blame are those who obviously misinterpret results, massage them, to make it appear time-dilation is real. However, as I said many times, it violates absolute truths and anyone with average intelligence knows that such a thing is impossible prior to carrying out experiments.
Manfred Particleboard
3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2016
The consistency and the predictive abilities of particle physics is a construct by a secret cabal of funding whores who worship Einstein? Now tell us all with a clear mind how this can be? That there is a 'conspiracy' that spans multiple disciplines of both science and engineering who are all taught to use a system of mathematics, then promptly cancel it out again because it doesn't do anything apparently. This is science, a hostile environment where an observable fact that can falsify a theory will be used to promote a career in a heartbeat. This still remains one great conspiracy; all charlatans every single one of them?
Manfred Particleboard
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
You see why the words 'nut job' and 'conspiracy theory' are so closely associated right?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@omnidiot the pseudoscience TROLL
Don't change my words
i didn't, you illiterate POS idiot
copy/paste them into CTRL+F and check your quotes
I asked you to show me where is the definition
and i just answered you with links/references and evidence

AND

you just proved that not only did you not read the FRE but that you didn't read McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 5 January 1982), which is directly relevant to the conversation as well as your argument

hence my "demonstrably illiterate" comment
It appears, you cannot show me
it appears you have a zephir like syntax and that you're incapable of reading
LMFAO
1- CTRL+F works

2- everything is clearly and specifically defined in those links/references i left you

3- if you can't read it then it's because you are specifically choosing not to read it, or refusing to even attempt to find it

you are not only proving yourself incompetent, but illiterate and attempting distraction
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 30, 2016

@Hot1208 Hello and welcome to our thread!
@Seeker
What would the speed of light have to do with gravitational lensing,..
Gravity warps or stretches spacetime. It therefore takes light longer to go from point A to point B. It's speed is decreased just as in glass where the density of spacetime is decreased because the matter in glass displaces the spacetime. Hence lensing.
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Manfred Particleboard: There's no conspiracy here. It is usual for people who are taught a certain way throughout many years to cling to what they are taught and would never imagine that there could be a discovery that could change that.

However, it happens so that someone find ``an observable fact that can falsify a theory'' within the theory itself, on its own pages. Also, although simple to see, nobody has ever seen it. Isn't that the nature of scientific discovery? Yes, it is and that's at the very core of science.

Such discovery mandates change, no matter how much people resist change and how inconvenient that change might be.
Omnibus101
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: You might've spared all that verbosity and could've dealt with it in on stroke -- just show me exactly where FRE defines science itself, not with respect to religion and how it differs from religion. You haven't show me such definition, hence the conclusion that you're just making it up. Making me read the whole reference is a distraction tactic to muddle the issue and make it appear that you have a point, which you don't really have.
Manfred Particleboard
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2016
Don't go back into a circular argument of 'my idea about section 10 proves that all of SR is false'. You need to now focus on explaining how 'The charlatans to blame are those who obviously misinterpret results, massage them, to make it appear time-dilation is real.'
Who does the massaging and when? Does the company that brings out a new aviation tracking and navigation software package put in the relativistic timing factors and then a secret agency steps in and erases them? It's a business, they care about selling expensive software not appeasing physics. It has to be safe and accurate otherwise people could die and the company owners have their arses in jail and sued out of existence. Who steps in and manipulates a critical piece of code and who is liable for the accuracy. Try to stay in the real world here buddy, this is where you defend your claims of hoax and conspiracy.

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016
@omnidiot the illiterate pseudoscience ZEPH-TROLL
just show me exactly where FRE defines science itself
this comment right here speaks volumes: it says you didn't even open the FRE link
Why?
because there is a search function on the page
not with respect to religion and how it differs from religion
what you have stated above is called "a belief without evidence", or, in other words, a *religion*
You haven't show me such definition
i was proving you were illiterate and intentionally ignoring evidence
i even stated
first lets see what your reading & comprehension levels are
and you walked right into it and validated my claim that you're not only ignoring evidence, but that you're illiterate and incapable of reading anything that doesn't agree with your biased delusional perspective

checkmate

feel free to answer, but you just made a colossal A** out of yourself to the world

that aint a debatable point but a proven fact
Manfred Particleboard
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
'There's no conspiracy here. It is usual for people who are taught a certain way throughout many years to cling to what they are taught and would never imagine that there could be a discovery that could change that'

Partical physicist: 'hmm the energies of the muon lepton collision products don't seem to agree? I wonder if the relativistic effects are to blame? '

I couldn't imagine that situation never coming up before? I suppose he just shrugged his shoulders and published anyway,

Manfred Particleboard
3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2016
@MPB
Are you actually trying to make sense to this guy.

It's a good exercise in psychology, make someone with a delusion confront the realities and complexities of their delusion. Keep asking How can this be? with lots of real world examples and the only thing they can do is constantly synthesise increasingly difficult answers. Generally it gets tiring, the delusion begins to make itself apparent to the holder when held up to the real world.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
Generally it gets tiring,
@Manfred
aint that the truth...!!
the delusion begins to make itself apparent to the holder when held up to the real world
not always
it really depends upon the level of dedication (or belief) of the holder of said delusion

if one is truly dedicated (or perhaps has a vested interest in said claims) then no amount of reality is going to shift them from their belief unless and until they can commit to accepting some internal change

this is made far, far more difficult under the current situation of internet, anonymity and the availability of pseudoscience

we have plenty of examples of that here on PO
It's a good exercise in psychology
this is true
Manfred Particleboard
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
It gets tiring for the person with the delusion is what I was inferring, but yes, dealing with the deluded is also tiring. I might never change this guys fixed idea, but they walk away if they can't keep up defending the inconsistencies with reality, generally speaking.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
but they walk away if they can't keep up defending the inconsistencies with reality, generally speaking
@Manfred Particleboard
i'm not so sure about this
just from PO alone we can see long term super-delusional behaviour: Zeph, realitycheck, obama_socks, cantdrive, reg mundy, etc

no matter how much evidence is accrued, they always stick around

I see your point, and i think it is valid in physical encounters, but IMHO not so much under the anonymity of the net

and it doesn't seem that those examples are a-typical - they're just more vested in their delusions

we see a high turnover of cranks - true- but they're not really dedicated to their delusion
they're here to troll more than anything, not push their beliefs like the above mentioned

(excluded the anti-GW crowd because we can't differentiate between paid shill and troll)
Manfred Particleboard
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016
Cantthink and anti are a favorite to pick on, deluded and shills. History tells me they shift onto a new post when cornered.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Manfred Particleboard
Cantthink is a favorite to pick on, deluded and a shill. History tells me he shifts onto a new post when cornered.
Then you will LOVE this thread if you haven't already read it: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

cantthink goes head to head with Tim Thompson

it is hilarious

yall have fun, i gotta run
L8er

Omnibus101
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@Captin Stumpy: No, there's no definition of science in the FDE.
Manfred Particleboard
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016
outta here too L8er!
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
See ya Manfred

.

@omnidiot the illiterate LYING troll
there's no definition of science in the FDE
1- it's FRE

2- and now you have just demonstrated you're a liar
why?
because there are multiple definitions depending on specialty as well as reference (that bar on the side when you search means: you can filter by content, CFR structure or USC structure)

so take a bow, you've just given empirical evidence and proven yourself to be illiterate, incompetent, delusional as well as a blatant liar

and that aint speculation - that can be verified by anyone who types the word "science" into the search function of that site

it's fact now

thanks for playing

i have far more important things to do - so i leave you to your soliloquy of inanity, or asininity (whichever you prefer)
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2016
Of course Einstein isn't wrong, but he isn't fully right either. He fit his model to the observable data, the solar system. Not his fault he couldn't predict galactic rotation or inflation.
Omnibus101
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: OK, give a link to prove there's a definition of science in FRE. That should be simple for you.
savvys84
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016


You're problem with that statement, is that it HAS been verified experimentally and observationally. Countless times. Or don't you read anything other than fake Indian journals?
Lol you seem to be a halfwit. no these are only misinterpretations to keep GR and SR dogmas alive
Omnibus101
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2016
@Scroofinator: ``Of course Einstein isn't wrong''

On the contrary, Einstein is entirely wrong.
savvys84
1 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2016
Hey, shitforbrains, fake journal = fake journal. If the paper had anything of merit to...


Lol jonesdave = half wit

prove me wrong
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 30, 2016
@Hotperson1208
@Seeker2

You gotta give me something to read.
Stop by any time.
To me warp and stretch are two different things.
Sorry can't help you on that one. Maybe you're stuck on twisting. That would be caused by frame dragging. You're still talking about stretching the medium.
Also why would bending of light slow it down.
What? Sounds like confusing cause and effect.
One more item; how can gravity affect something with no mass?
The speed of something with no mass is limited by the speed of light. Gravity effectively lengthens the distance which something with no mass must travel (stretches out the path length).
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 30, 2016
@Hotperson1208
To me warp and stretch are two different things.
Sorry can't help you on that one. Maybe you're stuck on twisting. That would be caused by frame dragging. You're still talking about stretching the medium.
Well, maybe not. You could be talking about compressing spacetime. In that case you would have tachyonic travel.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2016
@Physics Level 1 (at best!)
@Omnibus101
All is false. How it happened to fool the public is another story. .....However, as I said many times, it violates

Are you trying to bully us into submission?
How many times have you excreted this on this thread already?
"All is false". I have grown quite experienced with trolls - thanks Benni, insanicle, RC, Reggie the Clown, cd ! - but you dwarf 'em. In your own self appraisal terms: grandiose!
Nevertheless, go see a shrink.

Mmm, "Reggie the clown", eh?
I see our truce on insult-swapping has been violated.
I have refrained from reminding readers just what cretins you are, you and your little band of self-elevating dickheads (Strumpy, Irate, etc.) but I guess I will have to start reading and dismembering your illiterate childish posts again.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2016
The past 3-4 days of postings on this topic have been so outrageously entertaining, keep it going gang, it surpasses anything on reality TV shows.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2016


You're problem with that statement, is that it HAS been verified experimentally and observationally. Countless times. Or don't you read anything other than fake Indian journals?
Lol you seem to be a halfwit. no these are only misinterpretations to keep GR and SR dogmas alive


Jeez, another f*ckwit. Posts a reference to a fake journal, which takes all of 30 seconds to destroy (due to the author's incompetence), and then calls me a halfwit!!!! So, come on Einstein, lay out your mathematical proof. I'm assuming you have one, yes? Otherwise you wouldn't be here. Let's just hope that it is better than Omnitrolls rubbish.
Post away.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
Hey, shitforbrains, fake journal = fake journal. If the paper had anything of merit to...


Lol jonesdave = half wit

prove me wrong


Hey, shitforbrains, I already did. Your 'author' didn't understand GR. Got it horribly wrong. In a fake journal. You, personally, have said eff all. How am I to prove eff all wrong? What are you saying? All of which will no doubt be based on a sub-human IQ score, and sod all qualifications, yes? Prove me wrong. Eejit.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2016
@Capt,
.......cantthink goes head to head with Tim Thompson


Have to query your wording here, captain: 'Cantthink gets pwned by actual astrophysicist Tim Thompson', would have been more accurate. Never seen that before. Many lols.
savvys84
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2016
Hey, shitforbrains, fake journal = fake journal. If the paper had anything of merit to...


Lol jonesdave = half wit

prove me wrong


Hey, shitforbrains, I already did. Your 'author' .

hey numbskull. Im the author and know more about that journal than lump of half wits. once again are you educated enough to argue about wts in those 2 papers. if so im all ears
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2016


Jeez, another f*ckwit.

hay lump of sheites, read the 2 papers. the proofs all there
Seeker2
not rated yet