| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2006 06:58:31 AM |
| Object: |
Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
Now that the journal Nature has proclaimed "Testing times for
Einstein's theory"
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis:
Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically
insignificant, degree. The slogan of the new movement is:
"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
pregnant"
The newest education given by Einstein's hypnotists is here:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Lost Abaddon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
23 Apr 2006 11:07:07 AM |
|
|
Hello, every body, I'm new here.
I think we can see this problem in such two ways.
One, relativity is realy has something wrong. Perhaps just like the
situation that we found the Newtonian Physics is wrong in some special
situation. In some special fields, both the two relativities has some
problems that should to be fixed. In my memory, GR is not so correct
when we deal with the question happens in the high-energy filed.
Quantum effect will break GR. And, in the question of the collision of
membranes or something else extreme in M-theory, GR is also not a good
theory. So, perhaps we really should find some theory new to substitute
relativities.
Two, perhaps it's cause by that we don't know relativity such well as
we think. Perhaps there's also something in relativity that we haven't
knew. We think that the speed of light is a constant, and we think SR
and GR are based on it. But, it's very possible that it's wrong. Speed
of light may be a varialbe based on the state of universe. We can find
a function to calculate the speed of light from a group of values about
our universe. So, the proposition that "Speed of light is a constant,
and no matter can move fast than light" should be change to that "Speed
of light is a variable based on the state of universe, and no matter
can move fast than current light." This difference can make a lot of
things new and interesting, and if we observed it we will think that
relativity is wrong.
Just what I think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
23 Apr 2006 02:39:01 PM |
|
|
"Lost Abaddon" <LostAbaddon@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1145808427.630918.265550@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| Hello, every body, I'm new here.
How many times have we heard that one before?=20
Oh boy... we are really a fooled.
| I think we can see this problem in such two ways.
Such two ways...
| One, relativity is realy has something wrong.=20
is realy has...
Enough. *****, lying tord.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
23 Apr 2006 11:20:34 AM |
|
|
Folowing the last post :
let me suggest sme idea that i woul dnot bet my head on it -
just a 'bain storming' wild suggestion :
if th e photon has mass(as it sdeems more and mor elkikely )
than it could be affected
by different big masses to change its speed ?
how about that ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
24 Apr 2006 04:44:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1145809234.441370.137720@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
Folowing the last post :
let me suggest sme idea that i woul dnot bet my head on it -
just a 'bain storming' wild suggestion :
if th e photon has mass(as it sdeems more and mor elkikely )
Only in your mind.
than it could be affected
by different big masses to change its speed ?
Well, we know it's affected by the density of the medium it travels through,
but no, in a vacuum, it's c today, c tomorrow, and c forever.
how about that ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 04:32:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1145015911.928098.201230@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now that the journal Nature has proclaimed "Testing times for
Einstein's theory"
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis:
Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically
insignificant, degree.
Your opinion.
The slogan of the new movement is:
"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
pregnant"
Your words. It's easy to make up something and thus make the other side look
bad.
I could say, "Pentcho claims carbon has 7 protons" and make you look bad.
The newest education given by Einstein's hypnotists is here:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stamenin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 01:19:04 PM |
|
|
All these anwers show that you do not take in to accont that many
thing are not available for us to be known. Such are the infinity of
the univers, what is a photon,that we can't determine an absolute
system of coordinates etc.To my opinion the Newton theory needs sume
more explanations but the Einstein theory as is said is totally
mistaken.
All these happened because some questions are not explained in Newton
mechanics:
1) Is not clarified that an absolute system of coordinates and relative
system of coordinates
as were defined by Newton are impossible to be thetermined in spite of
the fact that they exist.
2) Is not clarified that the principle of the relativity, is not a law
of the physics but a rule by which we determine a truth about the laws
of the mechanics in a coordinate inertial system
K1 if we know what form they have in a coordinate inertial system K2.
3) Is not clarified that the principle of the relativity is a
consequence of the first law of the mechanics and of the Galilei
transformation.
4) Is not explained properly why the principle of the telativity is
valid in a coordinate system rigidly attached to the horizontal plan at
earth surface.
5) Is not exlained and is not taken in to account the role which play
the inertial and the
gravitational forces in the motion of the planets around the sun, and
the solar system around the center of the galaxy.
All these questions and others are treated in the Tasko's articles
that can be seen in his
group:www.msnusers.com/sci-pfysics-relativity/Documents
Please visit this group and join it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
15 Apr 2006 04:38:08 AM |
|
|
Pancho Villa wrote:
Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong?
No, it's a big wrong haw haw haw haw ee-aw ee-aw ee King Midas has
great *****'s ears King Midas has this 'ere great *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 07:11:36 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Now that the journal Nature has proclaimed "Testing times for
Einstein's theory"
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis:
Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically
insignificant, degree. The slogan of the new movement is:
"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
pregnant"
The newest education given by Einstein's hypnotists is here:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
Pentcho Valev
Are you and Ed Conrad gay lovers?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 07:50:15 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
pregnant
No, relativity can be a little wrong just as Newtonian physics can
be a little wrong.
For many situations, Newtonian physics is completely accurate
to as much precision as needed. That's why we still use it.
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
said anything different.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 01:04:16 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
said anything different.
As I said already, you just choose to ignore the obvious by delegating
the problem somewhere else.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
I think I certainly have, but you would call me crazy because of your
zealous belief (as in the context of a religious one) in SR despite
your everyday experience indicates to you that SR just cannot be valid
(again quoting from Dr. Roberts).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 01:32:06 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands.
Do you really believe any of the stuff you post? I find it hard
to imagine how you could have a positive IQ, yet spend so much time
on something as straight forward as special relativity without any
indication of having understood anything at all.
Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
On the other hand, you are dumber than anyone I ever encounter as
an everyday experience, but despite the fact that such stupidity is
counterintuitive, I am forced to accept its existence based on the
evidence from your posts. Evidently, truth is stranger than fiction.
All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
said anything different.
As I said already, you just choose to ignore the obvious by delegating
the problem somewhere else.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
I think I certainly have,
Then why don't you post it instead of posting all of the completely
bizarre garbage you post? Do you think stupidity is a form of performance
art or what?
but you would call me crazy because of your
zealous belief (as in the context of a religious one) in SR despite
your everyday experience indicates to you that SR just cannot be valid
(again quoting from Dr. Roberts).
Actually, I think you are crazy because everything you post tends
to point to that conclusion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 04:45:01 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145167456.379902.83950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
"The reason why special relativity is bogus":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
Two fundamental reasons in a row. Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 08:38:00 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> =
wrote in message news:xmo0g.375176$Lw4.10992692@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|=20
| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1145167456.379902.83950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
| > > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
| >
| > Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please =
allow
| > me to explain.
| >
| > Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still =
have
| > both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. =
According
| > to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
| > hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
| > forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is =
aging
| > relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
| > very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of =
your
| > body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or =
even
| > fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
| > predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
| > experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
| > conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
|=20
| "The reason why special relativity is bogus":
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
|=20
| Two fundamental reasons in a row. Congratulations.
"You are playing a nasty and unfair game." -- Dork Vdm
|=20
| Dirk Vdm
How much the Dork Van de merde knows about special relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/*****.htm
(I'm playing a nasty and unfair game.)
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 01:36:12 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister, sekret agent wannabe:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> =
wrote in message news:xmo0g.375176$Lw4.10992692@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|=20
| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1145167456.379902.83950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
| > > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
| >
| > Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please =
allow
| > me to explain.
| >
| > Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still =
have
| > both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. =
According
| > to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
| > hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
| > forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is =
aging
| > relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
| > very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of =
your
| > body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or =
even
| > fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
| > predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
| > experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
| > conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
|=20
| "The reason why special relativity is bogus":
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
|=20
| Two fundamental reasons in a row. Congratulations.
"You are playing a nasty and unfair game." -- Dork Vdm
|=20
| Dirk Vdm
How much the Dork Van de merde knows about special relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/*****.htm
(I'm playing a nasty and unfair game.)
That's ok, since no one really cares that you are nasty and unfair
to yourself.
You need to call scotland yard, the fbi and the muppet detective agency
on your shoe phone again, since no one has come around to arrest me for
ridiculing you yet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
17 Apr 2006 03:30:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1145167456.379902.83950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Your claim is illogical. Please allow yourself to go to school.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand.
You are totally ignorant.
So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
No, your crackpot idea is far more bogus.
All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
said anything different.
As I said already, you just choose to ignore the obvious by delegating
the problem somewhere else.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
I think I certainly have, but you would call me crazy because of your
zealous belief (as in the context of a religious one) in SR despite
your everyday experience indicates to you that SR just cannot be valid
(again quoting from Dr. Roberts).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
18 Apr 2006 07:52:18 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands.
Ignorant statement number one: There are human beings
one hand and zero hands who are not "mutants".
According to SR, each hand would experience the slow down
in time of the other hand.
Which means that if an observer timed two events on
one hand, the same two events measured by the other
observer would have a different time interval.
For hands moving at 3 m/sec, the time dilation factor
gamma is 1 - 5*10^-17. To my knowledge, there is no
instrument today capable of measuring to a precision of
5 parts in 10^17.
Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand.
Ignorant statement numbers 2 and 3. First of all, the
difference between the relativistic and non-relativistic
descriptions of this sequence of events is so small
it is undetectable. So my statement "For ALL situations
to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision"
applies because to the limits of experimental precision,
SR and non-SR descriptions are the same.
Second, you are making the basic error many neophytes
do with regard to the twin paradox, that there is a
"fundamental contradiction" in mutual time dilation.
The events marked by the hands meeting occur
in all frames of reference. Even "relativity of simultaneity"
(which might be your next "contradiction") doesn't
apply here. Relativity of simultaneity says that
events which are not at the same spatial location
can not be simultaneous in all frames. But a
collision, which consists of two bodies at the
same point at the same time, is a collision in
all frames.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
I think I certainly have,
No, you're recycling misunderstandings which are
decades old and have been put forth by others in
this newsgroup as long as it has existed. Your
"new discoveries" aren't even new to sci.physics.relativity.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 01:31:34 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145019014.959786.56010@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
hahahahhaahha
Almost as good as Ken Seto's views on SR, but definetly better than
Henri Wilson's. At least you got me to laugh before I commented on how
fucking stupid you are.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 08:12:47 AM |
|
|
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for. Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
physics.
One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
disappears from view. How precise do you want to be? Maybe some
powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 04:34:33 AM |
|
|
In article <qe7v32t9ehdnqgcr4smhvhgkotnqvg4f92@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
So does every measurement we make. Gravity, acceleration, etc., all say
there's a lot more mass.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
physics.
You can blame AIDS on fairy dust for all the difference it makes.
One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
disappears from view.
It hasn't disappeared; it just doesn't radiate energy and so is not detectable
from a distance.
How precise do you want to be? Maybe some
powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
Louis Savain
So is scoffing at your hubris.
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 01:35:40 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 03:06:47 PM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter. This is obviously chicken ***** politics at play. Yet, on the
basis of the supposed correctness of GR, astronomers have extrapolated
all sorts of voodoo crap, such as the big bang, black holes, universal
expansion, etc... Many are easily fooled but not all of us are so
naive. I, for one, recognize failure when I see it. And a monumental
failure it is. ahahahaha....
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 03:26:28 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable.
Yes. Hence my call to the test which invalidated what
you say is a prediction.
Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
it for what it really is
There it is again, a hint that you have higher empirical
knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to.
(a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter.
There are two possibilities. One is that there is more
matter than we have been able to detect. Another is
that the mass estimate is correct and the theory of its
effects is wrong.
So far as I know, neither is falsifiable yet. For dark
matter to be falsifiable, it would have to come up with
some observable.
This is obviously
As you point out, science is falsifiable. "Obvious" is
not a reason for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.
Especially when it is a minority of one who finds
it "obvious", while it is not at all obvious to those
who actually think about and measure such things
for a living.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
15 Apr 2006 11:31:53 PM |
|
|
ahaha... ***** kisser extraordinaire Randy Poe wrote:
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[]>
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable.
Yes. Hence my call to the test which invalidated what
you say is a prediction.
Look *****, you can take your call and pack it up your ***** for all I
care.
Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
it for what it really is
There it is again, a hint that you have higher empirical
knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to.
Don't lump yourself with anybody else. Everybody who has not been dead
the last few years knows what is being talked about here. If you
don't, educate yourself or *****.
(a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter.
There are two possibilities. One is that there is more
matter than we have been able to detect.
That's not it. As per the predictions of current theory, they are
detecting a huge amount of mass by observing its gravitational effect
on visible matter. Problem is, the gravitational mass is all they can
detect. They can detect no other property of this invisible mass. No
spectral signature, no magnetic or electrical effects. Zilch! Nada!
And we are not talking about one or two hypothetical particles here.
We are talking about more than half of the fucking universe, for
crying out loud!
How fucking plausible is that? It is infinitely more plausible that
there is no missing mass and that both GR and Newtonian gravity theory
are wrong when it comes to large scale gravitational attraction. And
why is it more plausible? Simple. Neither Newton nor Einstein (and the
rest of the clueless relativists, ahahaha...) understood jack *****
about the true mechanism of gravity. Their theories are chicken *****,
from my point of view, just engineering equations after the fact.
Spacetime physicists have no idea why their equations work or don't
work. Why? Because they refuse to form a hypothesis in the form of a
physical model. They are all worshipping Newton's dead ***** and copying
his "hypotheses non fingo" crap to the letter. Sure, Newton was a
smart mofo but he was not God and he admitted his ignorance. The
physics community is a community of ***** kissers, all of them.
ahahaha...
Another is
that the mass estimate is correct and the theory of its
effects is wrong.
So far as I know, neither is falsifiable yet. For dark
matter to be falsifiable, it would have to come up with
some observable.
What are you, a fucking moron? How does one come up with something
that is unobservable. What we have here is the lumineferous aether
crap all over again. It's no better than the crap being peddled by the
superstring con artists, you know, the crap about dimensions being
curled up into little fucking balls so tiny that they can never be
observed. It's fucking crackpottery in high places. They get away with
peddling their crap to an unsuspecting public because they can.
Spacetime physics is a fucking racket run by a nerd mafia. You know it
and I know it. Don't you fucking deny it, goddamnit. ahahaha...
This is obviously
As you point out, science is falsifiable. "Obvious" is
not a reason for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.
Especially when it is a minority of one who finds
it "obvious", while it is not at all obvious to those
who actually think about and measure such things
for a living.
Of course, it is not obvious to "physicists", especially if he/she is
an ***** kisser and his/her livelihood is on the line. I don't have this
problem because the physics community (i.e., the charlatans and
crackpots who hold the purse strings) does not put food on my table.
ahahaha... I am a free man and, as always, I say it like I see it.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 04:08:34 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found.
Not "nowhere to be found". It hasn't been found *yet*.
You presume that if it were somewhere to be found, we would have
certainly found it by now. That seems to be a rather lame assumption,
and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that is,
at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
I'll mention a few:
In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
periodic table
In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
In molecular biology: mRNA
In astronomy: Neptune
In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
rather useless as a theory. It's only when a theory predicts something
that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
PD
Rather than see
it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter. This is obviously chicken ***** politics at play. Yet, on the
basis of the supposed correctness of GR, astronomers have extrapolated
all sorts of voodoo crap, such as the big bang, black holes, universal
expansion, etc... Many are easily fooled but not all of us are so
naive. I, for one, recognize failure when I see it. And a monumental
failure it is. ahahahaha....
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 07:06:33 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1145048913.963713.6460@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|=20
| Traveler wrote:
| > On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >Traveler wrote:
| > >> ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
| > >>
| > >> >For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, =
relativity
| > >> >is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
| > >>
| > >> ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics =
predict
| > >> that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
| > >
| > >As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
| > >like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
| > >GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
| > >theoretical shift.
| > >
| > >But your view of the scientific method here is a little
| > >flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
| > >the limits of experimental precision".
| > >
| > > - I make a prediction about the results of a
| > >measurement.
| > > - I do the experiment and get a result with
| > >error bars.
| > > - my prediction falls within the error bars.
| > >
| > >> Physicists
| > >> call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or =
some
| > >> other voodoo crap.
| > >
| > >Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
| > >the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
| > >so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
| > >much?
| > >
| > >If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
| > >silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
| > >experiment.
| >
| > Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
| > falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
| > applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search =
for
| > dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, =
as
| > predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found.
|=20
| Not "nowhere to be found". It hasn't been found *yet*.
Ignorant arsehole. Bright green flying elephants haven't been found yet.
| You presume that if it were somewhere to be found, we would have
| certainly found it by now.
That seems to be a rather lame assumption,
You are the one that is lame, searching for something that doesn't =
exist.
| and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
| a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that =
is,
| at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
| that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
|=20
| I'll mention a few:
| In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
| periodic table
Classical.
| In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
You haven't found those yet. You can't even make up your mind whether
a photon has mass.
| In molecular biology: mRNA
Classical.
| In astronomy: Neptune
Classical.
|=20
| In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
| rather useless as a theory.=20
Idiot. You've obviously never designed a TV, refrigerator or gasoline =
engine.
| It's only when a theory predicts something
| that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
Does it ever occur to you, *****, that failure to find something =
might
mean the fucking theory is crap?
No?=20
Didn't think so.
Androcles.
|=20
| PD
|=20
| > Rather than see
| > it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
| > accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame =
it
| > instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable =
esoteric
| > matter. This is obviously chicken ***** politics at play. Yet, on the
| > basis of the supposed correctness of GR, astronomers have =
extrapolated
| > all sorts of voodoo crap, such as the big bang, black holes, =
universal
| > expansion, etc... Many are easily fooled but not all of us are so
| > naive. I, for one, recognize failure when I see it. And a monumental
| > failure it is. ahahahaha....
| >
| > Louis Savain
| >
| > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
| > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
15 Apr 2006 06:49:35 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145048913.963713.6460@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Traveler wrote:
| > On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >Traveler wrote:
| > >> ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
| > >>
| > >> >For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
| > >> >is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
| > >>
| > >> ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
| > >> that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
| > >
| > >As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
| > >like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
| > >GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
| > >theoretical shift.
| > >
| > >But your view of the scientific method here is a little
| > >flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
| > >the limits of experimental precision".
| > >
| > > - I make a prediction about the results of a
| > >measurement.
| > > - I do the experiment and get a result with
| > >error bars.
| > > - my prediction falls within the error bars.
| > >
| > >> Physicists
| > >> call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
| > >> other voodoo crap.
| > >
| > >Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
| > >the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
| > >so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
| > >much?
| > >
| > >If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
| > >silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
| > >experiment.
| >
| > Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
| > falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
| > applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
| > dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
| > predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found.
|
| Not "nowhere to be found". It hasn't been found *yet*.
Ignorant arsehole. Bright green flying elephants haven't been found yet.
| You presume that if it were somewhere to be found, we would have
| certainly found it by now.
That seems to be a rather lame assumption,
You are the one that is lame, searching for something that doesn't exist.
You seem so sure.
| and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
| a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that is,
| at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
| that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
|
| I'll mention a few:
| In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
| periodic table
Classical.
| In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
You haven't found those yet. You can't even make up your mind whether
a photon has mass.
I beg your pardon? Haven't found the neutrino and the upsilon? Where
have you been?
| In molecular biology: mRNA
Classical.
| In astronomy: Neptune
Classical.
|
| In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
| rather useless as a theory.
Idiot. You've obviously never designed a TV, refrigerator or gasoline engine.
I fail to see your point. The theory that explains only what has
already been observed is ... what, in the cases that you mention?
| It's only when a theory predicts something
| that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
Does it ever occur to you, *****, that failure to find something might
mean the fucking theory is crap?
Of course it occurs to me. And if this turns out to be the case, then
fun will abound.
However, it hasn't been put to the test. Moreover, there's a historical
discouragement against impatience. There were some years between the
hypothesis and the experimental confirmation of the neutrino, of
Neptune, of quarks, of mRNA, of W and Z bosons, etc.
I understand that since time is short for you, you might be impatient.
However, science need not accomodate your schedule for revelation.
PD
No?
Didn't think so.
Androcles.
|
| PD
|
| > Rather than see
| > it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
| > accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
| > instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
| > matter. This is obviously chicken ***** politics at play. Yet, on the
| > basis of the supposed correctness of GR, astronomers have extrapolated
| > all sorts of voodoo crap, such as the big bang, black holes, universal
| > expansion, etc... Many are easily fooled but not all of us are so
| > naive. I, for one, recognize failure when I see it. And a monumental
| > failure it is. ahahahaha....
| >
| > Louis Savain
| >
| > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
| > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
15 Apr 2006 01:07:36 PM |
|
|
In <dOW%f.57572$8Q3.44739@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, sent to sci.physics on
Saturday 15 April 2006 01:06, Hexenmeister (vanquish@broom.Mickey_b) had a
brainstorm and wrote:
Does it ever occur to you, *****, that failure to find something might
mean the fucking theory is crap?
No?
Didn't think so.
Androcles.
Stop changing your email address so I can keep you in my kill file. Your
posts are beyond pointless.
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 03:43:36 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter.
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/msg/c72eaa89e5f8cc04
"The realm of the CA [creative agent] is not to be confused with the
physical realm.
They both exist separately but in complementary fashion. The CA does
not create physical entities from within its own realm. It cannot
because nothing changes in that realm."
Whereas you produce a "creative agent" out of a hat, ending your
quest for "why?" at a point of your choosing instead of everyone
else's. A creative agent which does not exist in the physical realm,
and which cannot be falsified.
Phooey to yooey, Looey.
Mitch P.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
15 Apr 2006 10:52:14 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
Well, Randy, just to be devil's advocate, although I in no way support
the tone of the criticism, there is to my mind just a tiny bit of
substance lurking behind the rant.
To wit, Bayesian inference is always with us, gainsay it as we will,
and any time the current theory is confronted with some not necessarily
fatal yet not totally explained anomalies, the choice is as follows:
existing theory + unknown factors <-vs.-> unknown theory
Regarding the "probability" that existing theory will be superceded, we
must consider the "probability" of the existence of unknown factors --
consistent with existing theory -- which account for known observation.
Therefore, while the other fellow's rude tone places him beneath notice
in polite discussion, yet I'd say your reply was somewhat disingenuous.
In effect you are arguing that the proposed existence of any effect for
which error bars cannot be assigned must be accepted as beyond
reproach, which I take it is hardly what you meant to say. We must
form -- horrors -- some informed judgement on the relative likelihood
of unknown conditions consistent with the existing theory, vs. the
replacement of said theory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
14 Apr 2006 12:21:52 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ***** kisser) wrote:
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for. Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
physics.
No, this isn't accurate. There is a mismatch between the mass that is
accounted for by GR and the mass that is *visible* or that we can add
up by adding up baryons. This does not mean that the mass is "missing".
It means our list of observed species of mass is not complete.
This is not uncommon in science.
We know that we do not have a complete tally of living species on this
planet -- far from it. This doesn't make zoology voodoo science.
We know that we do not have a complete tally of chemical substances on
this planet -- far from it. This doesn't make chemistry voodoo science.
One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
disappears from view. How precise do you want to be?
Do you need to know all organic compounds to be absolutely precise
about metallic hydrides?
Do you need to know all bacterial species to be absolutely precise
about evolution of vertebrates?
Where do you think lack of completeness contributes to lack of
precision? Exactly?
Maybe some
powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
Welcome to the Palace for the Easily Amused.
PD
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
24 Apr 2006 04:05:49 AM |
|
|
Surely scientific progress involves the discovery that a theory is an
approximation to physical measurements. Once this discovery has been
made a new theory is developed in which the old theory is contained as
an approximation. Relativity replaced Newtonian physics and we all
expect QM and Relativity in their turn to be combined one day.
There is nothing "wrong" with relativity. There will be nothing "wrong"
with relativity and QM when they are replaced, they will just be
approximations. See
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_relativity
for an explanation of SR.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stamenin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong? |
16 Apr 2006 04:17:02 PM |
|
|
The Einstein theory is totally mistaken because the Lorenz
transformation is mistaken.
To see this let take an example with the folowing dates:
v=0,002 km/s.
x2=2.838x10^24 km.
t2=10s.
From the Lorenz transformation can have:
t1=1/R(t2+v.x2/c^2)=10s+2000years. (where R is the square root).
The distance betwin the origins of the two coordinate systems if they
were supposed to be at the same point at the t2=0 will be:
O1O2=v.t1=126,144,000km.
If we suppose that the two coordinate systems were attached to two
men being equipped with meters and watches, they both should have
measured 10s and a distance of 20m.
To my opinion this result is an evident mistake and could be
eliminated only if v=0,
or x2=o. but with this is eliminated and the Lorenz transformation and
practically the Einstein theory of the relativity.
what is your opinion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
