| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sknil" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 09:48:06 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
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: "The Brilliance of Our Teachers" |
03 Oct 2005 01:47:03 PM |
|
|
Sknil wrote:
"The Brilliance of Our Teachers"
[snip 158 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://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: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Brilliance of Our Teachers" |
03 Oct 2005 09:57:14 AM |
|
|
Sknil wrote:
"The Brilliance of Our Teachers"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
Why do you post under a different alias every day? Why is that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
