| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dlog" |
| Date: |
10 Sep 2005 09:32:57 AM |
| Object: |
"General Relativity Examined" |
"General Relativity Examined"</H2></B>
In 1915 Dr. Einstein published the General Theory of
Relativity. It accepted the Principle of Relativity (the laws and constants
of
the Science of Physics were the same in all reference frames) as a postulate
(upon which Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of
Equivalence. The Principle of Equivalence asserts that it is not possible to
distinguish between the effects of inertial acceleration and gravitational
acceleration.
In a Force-Length-Time system of units, the Special Theory of
Relativity (STR) can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations
for
Force, Length, and Time. (These Transformations plus the fact that
information
could not, at least at that time, be transferred faster than the velocity of
light completely explained the effects of velocity in terms consistent with
the
idea that an "absolute velocity reference" (i.e.- the Aether) was not
required
for evaluating observations (usually ignored is the fact that the existence
of
the Aether was not forbidden by STR).
The appropriate Lorentz Transformations for velocity both as
provided by the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory and by Special
Relativity
are provided below:
Dimensional Entity--------------Value
Force (F)-----------------------1
Length (L)----------------------1/(1-[V/C]^2)^0.5
Time (T)------------------------(1-[V/C]^2)^0.5
(All other required transformations can be derived from the
above by applying 19th the Century technique of Dimensional Analysis to
known
and well tested physical laws.)
When one examines the above transformations, he finds that the
Principle of Relativity is satisfied because they have the property of
"multiplicative commutivity". This means that one can use the
transformations to
go from one reference frame to another to another successively and obtain
the
same result as if he went from the first reference frame directly to the
last.
This property occurs in the Lorentz Transformations because the
transformation
for energy (force-length product) and the transformation for time are
reciprocal
to each other and because they contain a minus sign which allows the
transformation to have a zero value when V=C. The rotation of axes
introduced by
the mathematical treatment of STR results from the fact that the Lorentz
Transformations are identical to the expressions of the Pythagorean theorem.
There is no conflict between the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory and
the
Special Theory of Relativity since the former is a special case solution of
the
latter.
The writer's first had cause to question the validity of
General Relativity in the early 60's when, in studying the mathematics of
GTR,
he came across GTR's transformations equivalent to those of STR:
Dimensional Entity------------Value
Force (F)----------------------1
Length (L)--------------------1
Time (T)-----------------------1/(1+$)
Space (S)----------------------1/(1+$)
Where "$" is the gravitational potential between two
elevations as defined with the upper elevation units of measurement for
energy.
(The value of "$" is identical with the equivalent term in the time dilation
provided by GTR.) It will be noted that, in order to solve the equations
used in
deriving GTR, Dr. Einstein found it necessary that space be "curved" and
thus
the transformation represented by that curvature is also provided.
The difficulty with the above transformations is that, without
a transformation for energy that was reciprocal to the transformation for
time,
GTR cannot satisfy the Principle of Relativity and, since it doesn't, it
must
predict that physical laws change as a function of elevation. Such an effect
should quickly become obvious. Since these laws do not appear to change,
even in
strong fields, the writer began to search for a better way of deriving the
nature of the gravitational field and to determine where the mathematics of
GTR
went wrong. (The subject is amply covered in "Gravity" [1987] at the
Website.)
Examination of the above table also shows that, in addition to
violating the Principle of Relativity, it violates the Principle of
Equivalence
because it does not provide transformations that are analogous to the
Lorentz
Transformations. The dilation for time is not balanced by a reciprocal
transformation for energy and does not contain a minus sign that would allow
the
dilation to have a zero or infinite value. With these transformations, one
would
obtain the absurd conclusion that a different result would occur if an
elevator
going from the first floor to the third floor happened to stop at the second
floor.
It would appear that GTR is flawed. Not only does it violate
its basic postulates, the Principles of Equivalence and of Relativity, it
provides the strange conclusions associated with GTR (e.g. - curved space,
black
holes, singularities, wormholes, incompatibility with Quantum Theory, the
existence of a quantum foam at the scale of 10^-34 meters, Superstring
Theory,
and its failure to account for the forces effecting interstellar matter
["dark
matter" and the increasing rate of the Universe's expansion].) Most
significantly, it also leads to the conclusion that the alleged "Big Bang"
origin of the Universe resulted not from an observed expansion of the
location
of matter but from an expansion of space itself that will continue
indefinitely.
Unfortunately the latter conclusion has several weaknesses. It requires that
energy be continuously added to our Universe from some unexplained source in
gross violation of the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and it
requires
that space must have somewhere in which to expand that is outside of space.
Concluding that space itself is expanding and that the energy implied by
this
expansion is continuously being supplied from an external source is one of
the
most extreme acts of "Faith" in what can only be described as a "Religion"
built
around GTR. The concept certainly does not meet the requirements of a self
consistent fact based Science.
Once the correct time dilation for gravity has been determined
though a simple thought experiments relying on basic, well known, and easily
testable physical laws, it is easily shown that the requirement of
multiplicative commutivity and the Principle of Equivalence is satisfied in
terms of Euclidean Space by the following gravity transformations:
Dimensional Entity-------------------Value
Force (F)----------------------------1
Length (L)---------------------------1/(1-$)
Time (T)-----------------------------(1-$)
It should be noted that the above could be derived by applying
the Rules of Dimensional Analysis to accepted and readily verifiable
physical
laws in simple "thought experiments" and by a second independent method.
Analyzing Dr. Einstein's Elevator Model rigorously and taking into account
the
external work being done on the elevator in order to accelerate it "upwards"
(as
model theory requires but was not done) yields the identical
transformations.
Including the transformation for length increases the gravitational mass of
photons and neutrinos to twice the gravitational mass of material particles
of
the same energy content. The effect of the gravitational transformations is
that
light is refracted by a gravitational field, in terms of three dimensional
space, by the amount revealed by astronomical observation. It is also easily
shown that the paths of moving material objects are also refracted by
gravitational fields to the same degree as are photons and neutrinos. The
observations that allege to show that the gravitational field causes space
to be
"curved" actually result from this refraction is terms of "flat" space. (The
false conclusion that, while our overall Universe has been shown
observationally
to be "flat", space is "curved" in the presence of local gravitational
fields
results from that refraction in locally "flat" space. If this were not true,
a
perpetual motion machine of the first kind would be possible in principle,
an
obvious absurdity.)
When one apples these transformations to the gravitational
field, it is found that energy in the gravitational field is conserved in
the
"absolute sense" because the Principle of Relativity and the reduction in
size
of the units of measurement of energy causes a reduction of that "absolute"
energy contained in matter. This reduction in the "absolute" energy of the
matter appears as the energy of fall, and, since the units of measurement
for
length are shrinking, space is not expanding but only appears to do so! The
overall universe, as observed from within, must be as has already been
observed,
"flat" and it will appear to expand forever, probably at what appears to be
an
ever increasing rate.
The observed expansion does not result from an unexplained
repulsive force acting on the matter contained within it but as a result of
the
gaseous pressure exerted by the neutrinos and photons existing in space. The
estimates that the writer has seen of the amount of matter in the known
Universe
suggest that the observed electromagnetic radiation of 3 Kelvin's has an
energy
of at least 10 times the energy represented by the matter in the Universe
and,
as such would have a gravitational mass of at least 20 times the mass of the
matter contained in the Universe. In addition, since the nucleon is 1800
times
more massive than the electron, the energy represented by neutrinos COULD be
as
large as 1800 times the energy represented by photons. Following this
argument,
the combined gravitational mass of photons and neutrinos in the Universe
COULD
be as large as 36,000 times as large as the trivial gravitational mass of
the
matter it contains. Such a Universe would be reasonably described as a
balloon
of gaseous photons and neutrinos containing a minute sprinkling of matter
"dust". (These results are shown in "Gravity" copyright 1987.) Also shown is
that the observations that allegedly validated GTR are a natural result of
the
transformations in the above table without the need for the artificiality of
"curved space."
It has always puzzled the writer as to why photons and
neutrinos are considered to be "massless" particles. They clearly possess
inertial mass as evidenced by the radiation pressure exhibited by light, and
they can be shown to possess gravitational mass. The fact that they do not
possess a "rest mass" would hardly seem to justify considering them to be
massless since they do not exist unless they are traveling at the velocity
of
light. Maintaining correct definitions is important if one's thinking is to
be
accurate.
The test of any physical theory is whether it agrees with the
results of mathematical analysis and with all of the relevant observations.
The
generation of General Relativity contains a mathematical error that would
not be
tolerated if made by a student of freshman calculus. As a result, the
derivation
could not be completed without adding the extra degree of freedom that the
artificiality of non-Euclidean geometry provides. General Relativity agrees
with
observation only with respect to 1st order effects, hence its apparent
agreement
with observation in the extremely weak gravitational fields in the Solar
System.
(The observation limit is at least 5 orders of magnitude too coarse to
reveal
GTR's 2nd order errors and allows the acceptance of the current
absurdities.)
When the appropriate corrections are made, the alleged "Big Bang" origin of
the
Universe is seen to be a natural process of gravitational collapse as
observed
from the interior of the collapsing object late in its history. Most
importantly, General Relativity contains a zero order error with respect to
gravitational force and energy and as a result it cannot explain the force
that
holds you to your chair and the energy that injures you when you fall. (This
should be the prime purpose of any gravitational theory.) A treatment based
upon
the gravity transformations consistent with the Principle of Equivalence as
listed above seems to meet all of the requirements.
One might ask how General Relativity could be wrong. The
answer is that its derivation applied the mathematical process of
integration
and attempted to use the results of that integration to derive the constants
of
the terms to be integrated. If any student of elementary calculus repeatedly
attempted to perform such an operation, he would find himself repeating the
course. In order to overcome the effects of his mathematical mistake, Dr.
Einstein resorted to the fiction that space is "curved" and that gravity
results
from that curvature. This, despite the fact that an intelligent man should
immediately recognize that such a curvature cannot produce the force which
hold
you to your chair any more than the curve of the Earth's surface can impel
you
to move from New York to Chicago. When examining the history of General
Relativity, it is hard to understand how such an error could have been made
unless one or more of the following were true:
1:- Dr. Einstein did not understand the physical significance
of Relativity.
2:- He did not understand the rules of integral calculus.
As a result of failing to solve his difficulty in terms of
Euclidean space because of his error in the use of Tensor Calculus, it would
seem possible that he solved his dilemma by "faking it", either
intentionally or
in ignorance, by resorting to the artificiality of non-Euclidean geometry.
He
certainly would know that the gravitational fields available in the Solar
System
were too weak to reveal the effects of any 2nd order error. (It has been
reported that Dr. Einstein was extremely uneasy at the extension of GTR to
extremely strong fields, and at a conference where GTR was debated, the
conclusion reached was "why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one
can
prove it isn't". Actually they can and the proof is easy.)
There are at least two lessons here. One lesson is Dr.
Einstein's warning that "one should rely on observation and reasoning and
not be
swayed by the unproven opinions of others no matter how numerous or renowned
they may be". (This also applies to Dr. Einstein's conclusions). The second
lesson is that, while mathematics is a very useful tool, but it is only a
tool
and has its own limitations. A major limitation is that the probability of
error
increases as the number of steps involved become larger and quite often the
existence of such an error is not revealed by the results. Another
limitation is
that there are processes that can be described mathematically but which
cannot
work in reality unless an additional mechanization not considered in the
mathematics is present. (An example is the calculation of the output of a
vacuum
tube using its property of transconductance. The mathematics shows that
applying
a negative voltage to the control grid produces an increase in its positive
plate current. The mathematics does not show that this cannot occur unless
there
is a bias plate current already flowing and that the apparent increase in
plate
current results from a reduction in the flow of the bias current electrons.)
Mathematics should never be used without the an intelligent
understanding of the mechanisms involved, as was the practice prior to Dr.
Einstein's work. (In the case of GTR, one of the errors was the fact that
the
definition of a straight line currently in use is inadequate even for
Euclidean
geometry. A straight line is more properly defined as the shortest distance
between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY IN QUESTION. This
additional requirement is automatically met in Euclidean Geometry, but, in
the
case of non-Euclidean geometry, the shortest distance between two points
does
not meet that definition. In the two dimensional non-Euclidean geometry
represented by the Earth's surface, the shortest distance between New York
and
Los Angeles is not a great circle as we have been taught, it is through a
tunnel
which passes about 200 miles below the Mississippi river.)
For decades, it has been recognized that GTR and the related
concept of "space-time" of STR conflicted with Quantum Theory. Experimental
results indicate that Quantum Theory is valid to an extreme degree of
accuracy,
but, for some reason, no one seems to have questioned the validity of GTR.
To
resolve the dilemma Superstring Theory has been developed which asserts that
space is actually 10 dimensional and that the excess dimensions were in the
form
of loops having a conveniently unobservable diameter of 10^-34 meters. It
must
be pointed out that any jackass can solve a problem by adding an otherwise
unnecessary degree(s) of freedom.
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
10 Sep 2005 10:05:12 AM |
|
|
Dlog wrote:
"General Relativity Examined"</H2></B>
[snip 400 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
10 Sep 2005 10:13:22 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4322F628.4A4F8CC2@hate.spam.net...
| Dlog wrote:
| >
| > "General Relativity Examined"</H2></B>
| [snip 400 lines of ignorant crap]
This demonstrates Retic's inability to comprehend English.
Retic wrote:
| In 1915 Dr. Einstein published the General Theory of
| Relativity. It accepted the Principle of Relativity (the laws and
constants
| of
| the Science of Physics were the same in all reference frames) as a
postulate
| (upon which Special Relativity was based).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
***Examples of this sort***, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ***``Principle of Relativity''***) to the
status of a postulate.
What is the "example of this sort" referred?
"***Take, for example***, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a
magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on
the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet...
PREDICATE: Merriam Webster give the definition
2 : the part of a sentence or clause that expresses what is said of the
subject and that usually consists of a verb with or without objects,
complements, or adverbial modifiers.
Why is Retic quoting the adverbial modifier?
Schwartz is a phuckwit as well.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
10 Sep 2005 11:01:21 AM |
|
|
Dlog wrote:
"General Relativity Examined"</H2></B>
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Lepore" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
10 Sep 2005 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
Does anyone know of a way to make Outlook Express filter out
messages from people to try to prevent filtering by changing
their From: address every time they post?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
15 Sep 2005 08:21:48 AM |
|
|
In message <11i6k78sf7km353@corp.supernews.com>, Mike Lepore
<lepore5@bestweb.net> writes
Does anyone know of a way to make Outlook Express filter out
messages from people to try to prevent filtering by changing
their From: address every time they post?
No, but this particular pest has quite a small repertoire of message
subjects, and every posting contains boilerplate text that a good news
reader could detect.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "the softrat" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
15 Sep 2005 06:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:21:48 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
No, but this particular pest has quite a small repertoire of message
subjects, and every posting contains boilerplate text that a good news
reader could detect.
Please share.....what *is* a 'good newreader'?
Uh ...... for Windows NT......
the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
I am one with the universe - on a scale from one to ten.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
16 Sep 2005 03:46:36 AM |
|
|
In message <tg0ki1pjhcj27ianlnir3ersosbt32revh@4ax.com>, the softrat
<softrat@pobox.com> writes
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:21:48 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
No, but this particular pest has quite a small repertoire of message
subjects, and every posting contains boilerplate text that a good news
reader could detect.
Please share.....what *is* a 'good newreader'?
A matter of opinion ;-)
Uh ...... for Windows NT......
I'm using Turnpike, which has good filtering facilities, but its
development has effectively ceased so I can't endorse it 100%. But there
are plenty of free alternatives to OE out there.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "General Relativity Examined" |
10 Sep 2005 11:00:11 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Dlog
<dlog@isp.com>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:32:57 -0400
<34cae$4322eea3$d8080ea9$4760@DIALUPUSA.NET>:
"General Relativity Examined"</H2></B>
In 1915 Dr. Einstein published the General Theory of
Relativity. It accepted the Principle of Relativity (the laws and constants
[snip]
The appropriate Lorentz Transformations for velocity both as
provided by the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory and by Special
Relativity
are provided below:
Dimensional Entity--------------Value
Force (F)-----------------------1
Length (L)----------------------1/(1-[V/C]^2)^0.5
Time (T)------------------------(1-[V/C]^2)^0.5
[snip]
Close but no cigar.
xi = (x-vt)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(0.5)
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(0.5)
If one sets c=1 by a judicious choice of length and time units
(e.g., time in seconds, length in lightseconds (299792458 m),
or time in nanoseconds, length in nils (29.9792458 cm),
or time in years, length in light-years),
the form becomes slightly prettier:
xi = (x-vt)/(1-v^2)^(0.5)
tau = (t-vx)/(1-v^2)^(0.5)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
