| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Gooral" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2006 10:36:30 PM |
| Object: |
Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
At http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen writes:
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument
that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either
completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an
inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid
argument. If you doubt this, let me tell you something about
myself. I am 60 years old, I publish four magazines, and I am
quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me to
break my promise.
My question to Henry Haapalainen is:
What if one was not the author of an argument wich disproves your
theory of falling space, and only brought up to your attention
that such an argument (based on experimental evidence) exists and
applies to your theory? Would the person get the reward?
Jan Gooral
.
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
04 Mar 2006 03:21:22 AM |
|
|
Jan Gooral wrote:
At http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen writes:
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument
that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either
completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an
inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid
argument. If you doubt this, let me tell you something about
myself. I am 60 years old, I publish four magazines, and I am
quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me to
break my promise.
My question to Henry Haapalainen is:
What if one was not the author of an argument wich disproves your
theory of falling space, and only brought up to your attention
that such an argument (based on experimental evidence) exists and
applies to your theory? Would the person get the reward?
Jan Gooral
Is this a troll? (... and then carries on anyway!)
You don't seriously think that there is any possibility that this guy
will pay out, do you Jan? Have your read any of the text on his
website? He's as mad as a box of frogs!
He wants an "argument that invalidates this theory of gravity as
falling space"
Here's an argument: "God does it" - now where's the $1000 US (isn't
that about three pounds fifty at the current exchange rate?)
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Gooral" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
04 Mar 2006 10:37:38 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141464082.659411.144210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jan Gooral wrote:
[snip]
My question to Henry Haapalainen is:
What if one was not the author of an argument which disproves your
theory of falling space, and only brought up to your attention
that such an argument (based on experimental evidence) exists and
applies to your theory? Would the person get the reward?
Jan Gooral
Is this a troll? (... and then carries on anyway!)
You don't seriously think that there is any possibility that this guy
will pay out, do you Jan? Have your read any of the text on his
website? He's as mad as a box of frogs!
No, I did not count on the money. I just wanted to see what he
replies.
But if he is interested, the proof that the Falling Space
theory contradicts experimental evidence can be found in
section 7.4 of "Gravity..." (www.physicsdeconstructed.com).
This section discusses what C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A.
Wheeler call "local Lorentz frames", in their "Gravitation" (pp.
1055-1060). Misner et al. seem to suggest that clocks in a
gravitational field are retarded because they are in accelerated
motion relative to these freely falling frames. (Many other
textbooks suggest the same.) However, as is shown in section 7.4,
we have (since 1976) unambiguous experimental evidence that the
concept of these falling frames has no physical implications.
And therefore, the suggestion of Misner et al. (and other experts)
seems to be incorrect. So the general relativistic explanation of
gravitational retardation of clocks, supposedly derived from
equivalence principle, also seems to be incorrect.
This experimental evidence, as explained in section 7.4 of
"Gravity...", also proves that there is no freely falling space
which would affect clocks or anything else. And hence, his
theory correctly, it looses its foundation.
Jan Gooral
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
06 Mar 2006 04:41:35 AM |
|
|
Jan Gooral wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141464082.659411.144210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jan Gooral wrote:
[snip]
My question to Henry Haapalainen is:
What if one was not the author of an argument which disproves your
theory of falling space, and only brought up to your attention
that such an argument (based on experimental evidence) exists and
applies to your theory? Would the person get the reward?
Jan Gooral
Is this a troll? (... and then carries on anyway!)
You don't seriously think that there is any possibility that this guy
will pay out, do you Jan? Have your read any of the text on his
website? He's as mad as a box of frogs!
No, I did not count on the money. I just wanted to see what he
replies.
But if he is interested, the proof that the Falling Space
theory contradicts experimental evidence can be found in
section 7.4 of "Gravity..." (www.physicsdeconstructed.com).
This section discusses what C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A.
Wheeler call "local Lorentz frames", in their "Gravitation" (pp.
1055-1060). Misner et al. seem to suggest that clocks in a
gravitational field are retarded because they are in accelerated
motion relative to these freely falling frames. (Many other
textbooks suggest the same.) However, as is shown in section 7.4,
we have (since 1976) unambiguous experimental evidence that the
concept of these falling frames has no physical implications.
And therefore, the suggestion of Misner et al. (and other experts)
seems to be incorrect. So the general relativistic explanation of
gravitational retardation of clocks, supposedly derived from
equivalence principle, also seems to be incorrect.
This experimental evidence, as explained in section 7.4 of
"Gravity...", also proves that there is no freely falling space
which would affect clocks or anything else. And hence, his
theory correctly, it looses its foundation.
Jan Gooral
Hi Jan
I was going to form a reply, but apparently, you don't want to play
anymore - which is a shame, because I thought that some of the things
that you said were interesting.
Take care.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
06 Mar 2006 06:03:39 AM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141641695.101050.14240@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Jan Gooral wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141464082.659411.144210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jan Gooral wrote:
[snip]
My question to Henry Haapalainen is:
What if one was not the author of an argument which disproves your
theory of falling space, and only brought up to your attention
that such an argument (based on experimental evidence) exists and
applies to your theory? Would the person get the reward?
Jan Gooral
Is this a troll? (... and then carries on anyway!)
You don't seriously think that there is any possibility that this guy
will pay out, do you Jan? Have your read any of the text on his
website? He's as mad as a box of frogs!
No, I did not count on the money. I just wanted to see what he
replies.
But if he is interested, the proof that the Falling Space
theory contradicts experimental evidence can be found in
section 7.4 of "Gravity..." (www.physicsdeconstructed.com).
This section discusses what C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A.
Wheeler call "local Lorentz frames", in their "Gravitation" (pp.
1055-1060). Misner et al. seem to suggest that clocks in a
gravitational field are retarded because they are in accelerated
motion relative to these freely falling frames. (Many other
textbooks suggest the same.) However, as is shown in section 7.4,
we have (since 1976) unambiguous experimental evidence that the
concept of these falling frames has no physical implications.
And therefore, the suggestion of Misner et al. (and other experts)
seems to be incorrect. So the general relativistic explanation of
gravitational retardation of clocks, supposedly derived from
equivalence principle, also seems to be incorrect.
This experimental evidence, as explained in section 7.4 of
"Gravity...", also proves that there is no freely falling space
which would affect clocks or anything else. And hence, his
theory correctly, it looses its foundation.
Jan Gooral
Hi Jan
I was going to form a reply, but apparently, you don't want to play
anymore - which is a shame, because I thought that some of the things
that you said were interesting.
Take care.
SCW
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave5.6Mbytes.xls
Don't you want to play anymore?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
06 Mar 2006 04:24:01 PM |
|
|
What its this? I don't remember that I should have seen that heading before.
The reward is still valid.
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that
invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a
major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that
contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you
doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I
publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation
would not allow me to break my promise.
Falling space: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
06 Mar 2006 08:53:14 PM |
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:duicbs$q34$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
What its this? I don't remember that I should have seen that heading
before.
The reward is still valid.
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that
invalidates this theory of gravity
10000 US dollars if you can disprove the existence of bright green
flying elephants.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any
flaws in your theory.
See Baez's crackpot index.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
06 Mar 2006 05:31:16 PM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
What its this? I don't remember that I should have seen that heading before.
The reward is still valid.
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that
invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a
major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that
contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you
doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I
publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation
would not allow me to break my promise.
Then put it the 1,000$ in escrow and let a 3rd party decide.
Falling space: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
12 Mar 2006 08:40:04 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
[snip fraud]
My reputation
would not allow me to break my promise.
What reputation, you got no reputation other than being a fraudelent
poster and a glorified idiot whose stupid theories have been debunked
by at least 100 people.
Mike
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Disproof of the Falling Space Theory exists |
12 Mar 2006 04:04:43 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen, fraud,
What its this? I don't remember that I should have seen that heading before.
The reward is still valid.
A reward awaits
You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that
You are a fraud. If you had paid everyone who has debunked your
silly conjectures, you would owe more than bill gates is worth.
invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a
major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that
contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you
doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I
publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation
would not allow me to break my promise.
Falling space: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
