| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Noititrap05" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2003 09:00:42 AM |
| Object: |
The Brilliance of Our Teachers |
The Brilliance of Our Teachers
A recent newspaper question and answer column raised an interesting
subject. The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there
were two instructors. One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly
and his students did well on standardized tests. The other instructor's
teachings were scattered and his students performed poorly. The students,
however, believed that the second instructor was brilliant and thought that his
explanations are simply over their heads. The query went on to ask why such a
misperception occurred.
The answer given was that both groups were easily misled into believing
that mysterious people are highly intelligent. When those listeners heard
material they didn't grasp, they assumed that the fault was theirs and not the
teachers. And, since the listeners considered themselves fairly intelligent, it
was obvious that the teacher must be brilliant!
Judging from the material posted in these Newsgroups, the effect would
seem to be quite pronounced. It is quite plain that the posters ardently
believe in the validity of what they have been taught. It is also quite obvious
that they are aware, if only sublimely, of the inconsistencies and
contradictions within that teaching. If that were not the case, the subject
matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics
would not be so muddled, and the postings would not suggest such a high level
of misunderstanding.
The truth of the matter is that the subjects, relativity in particular,
seem mysterious and contradictory for one basic reason. The teachers of the
subject do not themselves understand it. Because they don't understand the
subject they hide behind sophisticated, often unnecessary and sometimes self
contradictory mathematical explanations to prevent that lack of understanding
from being apparent. In order to achieve this goal they have made Physics into
the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. This is illustrated by a
quotation from Dr. Hawking who exclaimed, in an interview, that he was only
interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two
approaches. He didn't care about "reality" (for which we may read mechanism)
because he didn't know what reality was. This is unfortunate because the
present practice of ignoring mechanism, and overlooking the fact that nothing
is known until observation, mathematics and understanding of mechanism are in
agreement. Without such an agreement an understanding of the process(es)
involved is not assured. It is only when all three requirements have been met
that we can have any hope of knowing "who is doing what to whom".
Even more important, without including mechanism in our understanding
matrix, we eliminate a vital check on validity. The mathematics of many
processes extends to regions which are physically unrealizable. Without
considering mechanism these "empty" regions will not be recognized. An example
of the effect is the idea that "virtual photons" can explain forces which act
at a distance. "Virtual photons" can easily explain repulsive forces acting
between material particles, but they can not be used to explain attractive
forces. The same is true of "gravitons". They cannot produce the attractive
force of gravity! "Virtual particles" can only produce repulsive forces. An
understanding "mechanism" reveals this deficiency quite clearly.
To put the relativity concepts into perspective, the current orthodoxy
accepts the validity of the idea that there are no absolutes. Length is what
yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure. What is conveniently
overlooked is that the forces existing between the atoms in a yardstick and
the hairspring of a clock escapement (or their conceptual equivalents in actual
test equipment) must be electromagnetic in nature. Not only is electromagnetism
the only known candidate for these forces, the need for them follows if the
questionable idea of modern physics that interatomic forces are produced by the
exchange of "virtual photons" is not to collapse instantaneously. In addition,
the speed of a clock is affected by the mass of its balance wheel (or
equivalent) as given by M=E/C^2 and the stiffness of the forces between the
nuclei of the "hairspring" (or equivalent). Since all of the preceding are
functions of the velocity of light in the local reference frame, it is rather
foolish to make the assertion that length is what yardsticks measure and time
is what clocks measure without taking into account the effect that possible
changes in the actual velocity of light might have on them. Such changes may be
concealed by relativistically induced changes in the atomic spacings,
stiffnesses and inertial masses of our instruments When one does take these
considerations into account, the Principle of Relativity and the invariance of
the local velocity of light follow at once for the simple reason that matter
must be using the local "en vacuo" velocity of light to control its parameters.
A physicist who does not recognize this instinctively is clearly in the wrong
line of work. (I understand Wal-Mart is hiring.). One does not need to resort
to the sophisticated and to a large degree defective teachings of an arrogant
intellectual elite Once the basics are recognized, the understanding of the
process involved do not require advanced mathematics, they are within the
capabilities of a bright high school physics student.
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) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
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.
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.
For a response send E-Mail to
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.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers |
05 Nov 2003 11:25:51 AM |
|
|
"Noititrap05" <noititrap05@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031105100042.03666.00000507@mb-m06.aol.com...
The Brilliance of Our Teachers
A recent newspaper question and answer column raised an interesting
subject. The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there
were two instructors. One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly
and his students did well on standardized tests. The other instructor's
teachings were scattered and his students performed poorly. The students,
however, believed that the second instructor was brilliant and thought that his
explanations are simply over their heads. The query went on to ask why such a
misperception occurred.
Let me guess.... Ernest Wittke had one teacher of the
second kind too many. But little Ernest was not a
student who believed that the instructor was brilliant.
So little Ernest made a decision: from now, all teachers
who would tell him something that little Ernest would
not immediately grasp, would be bad teachers, and
whatever it would be that they would try to explain to
him, would be wrong by default. And so little Ernest
decided that he would tell this to as many people as
he possible could reach. And one day little Ernest
discovered Usenet and an Internet provider without
a spamming policy.
Right, little Ernest?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers |
05 Nov 2003 09:23:08 AM |
|
|
Noititrap05 wrote:
The Brilliance of Our Teachers
[snip]
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
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.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
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>
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass
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)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
