Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

Bhanwara aka Shithead Mukesh Prasad wrote:

<all cretinoid statements by Mukesh Prasad snipped as weaseling shit>

You don't give up, ****, do you?

 

A search of the article for the word "relativity" showed 0
occurrences. JP

 

"historical background to GPS"

 

Fucking cretin, John Polasek, can't even use google

 

Nor does it have any references to phase-locked loops, frequency
synthesizers, integrated circuits, etc. etc. either. Does that mean
that GPS operates without electronics?

Jerry

 

Ok, I did find one:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/essen/essen.html

Note that this is by the inventor of the atomic clock.
Also note that there was world-wide synchornization of
atomic clocks going on before its use in the GPS, so he
is familiar with synchronization issues.

He says about relativity:

"Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental
evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny. There are grave doubts
about Eddington's claim, both as regards the predicted value which was
increased by a factor of 2 from that first given by Einstein and the
way the results were analysed - some of the readings being discarded.
The same criticism applies to a more recent experiment performed, at
considerable expense, in 1972. Four atomic clocks were flown round the
world and the times recorded by them were compared with the times
recorded by similar clocks in Washington. The results obtained from the
individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly
optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the
scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock
paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not
sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted."

[Aside: If a factor of 2 error could easily be handled in the very
ORIGINAL
verification of GR, how many factors could be math-hacked away these
days?]

After the article, there is a quote from the web-site:

"Even though Dr. Louis Essen OBE was one of our top scientists, the
inventor of the atomic clock, he was only allowed to criticise
Einstein's hopelessly outdated Theory of Relativity in
small-circulation papers and magazines. This article would be censored
in 'Nature' magazine. The students and public are only allowed access
to scientific information that is harmless to a tiny handful of
powerful, scientific tyrants."

To me, personally, it proves:

1) Open publication is not the norm in relativity related physics.
2) From (1), and the fact that nothing questioning relativity
appears in physics journals, it follows that relativity
establishment is not honest. An honest establishment
in science would give equal time to dissident views, and then
would OPENLY refute the dissident views. Or would OPENLY
accept them if they are true.
3) "Tainted source" argument: From (2) it follows that the
experimental claims of the relativity establishment cannot
be just taken at faith value.

When experimental data is contradicting logic, and
the details of the data are not easily verifiable, and
are indeed highly suspect, the experimental data
cannot be given too much weight.

This is also proven by the fact that many other relativity
"proving" experiment are associated with very high
contention (i.e. a few honest people are found in
the establishment, they are then shouted down
and/or politically nullified.)
E.g. Hafele-Keating.

If the data clearly proved an established theory,
there would have been no need for massaging
the data, thereby causing contention.

So, from all the experimental data, all I can manage to
conclude so far is that I don't need to reconsider
anything about my own work.

YMMV.

 

Eddington's claim was re: gravitational deflection. It is widely
accepted that the proof of that at the time was overinflated as it
pushed the limits of the photographical plate to its limits. Later
works proved GR was correct.

The factor of two relates the difference between Newtonain and GR
deflection.

 

Of course not , your "work" is pure shit. This is the stuff that you
eat daily so it would be depriving you from your source of sustenance,
cretinoid.

 

http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/metromnia/issue18/

 

Bhanwara wrote:

[...]

Try looking for papers that directly reference NTS-2 and work backwards
from there. NTS-2 was a test sattelite for the relativistic corrections
from the mid 70's. If you actually cared about the topic you would be
in a library or hitting up google. I don't anticipate that being handed
everything you need will change your opinion - it will just make you
shut up for another day or two.

You are what is known as a "contrarian". You have no justification for
believing what you do other than it runs contrary to what actual
physicists believe. You contribute nothing to the process by mindlessly
saying "I don't believe it".

If you have any actual criticisms other than "I don't understand" or "I
can't do research", feel free to air them. Otherwise, be quiet.

 

It doesn't make him an authority on everything.

Unfortunately for you, he is wrong.

"Einstein defined the velocity of light as a universal constant and
thus broke a fundamental rule of science."

It is not an error, much less a serious one as he claims.

His argument about Eddington contains no physical insight in this day
because the lensing prediction of general relativity has been verified
to much more stringent levels than Eddington. He may have written it in
1988, but that is no excuse for being an idiot.

He is wrong. Read the paper AS WRITTEN by Hafele and Keating, not how
Essen thinks it was written.

http://jowr.us/physics

Essen has no credibility when he makes mistakes such as this. He may
have invented the atomic clock but it doesn't make him an authority on
everything, especially when he says shit like that.

Since you have no education in mathematics, I don't see the purpose or
either you asking that question or me answering it.

It wouldn't be "censored", it simply wouldn't be published in Nature
becuase Nature doesn't publish tripe.

....what? That you look for the flimsiest excuses possible to reject
relativity while demanding multiple sources and handholding before
accepting any evidence that supports it?

Like Nature, most journals don't publish tripe.

Thats how it works. Deal with it.

MOND, you fuckwit. Plenty of things get published that are counter to
relativity. Hell, even experiments trying to disprove relativity are
published.

That certaintly puts a kink into your unimaginative conspiracy theory.

That certaintly makes it easy for you to reject everything that proves
you wrong.

Genius! Rather than show the experiments wrong, you just reject ALL of
the evidence with a handwave. It makes proving you impossible to you
wrong because there is no way for you to accept the evidence!

Riiiiight...

Crank delusions are so fun to watch.

....and the reason for this long diatribe about how you reject nearly a
century of physics is justified.

 

You have no idea what the equations are or how they are derived.

 

And not just in America.

How I wish that was a joke :-(
Still, Mr. Potter is providing plenty of entertainment.

-Tim

 

[...]

Priceless. Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more. I've not
been able to find anything Galileo wrote after about 1642.

And just to tidy up the question of Relativity: If I measure the speed
of light, I get 299792458m/s. Suppose I was travelling along at some
very high speed whilst doing the measurement -- what would I get then?

(Please, not a cracker)

-Tim

 

Don't hold your breath for a reply. When I pointed out the first
mention of redshift was 1780's, he went silent. There is no published
reference anywhere that Galileo developed this supposed formula.

Also I pointed out his so called formula is a first-order binomial
simplification of the relativistic z formula, save a factor of 2.

He goes strangely silent then.

 

Nor, in fact, any reason to expect he did. Keep in mind that:

1) Galileo didn't even know whether the speed of light is finite or
not.

2) Even assuming it is finite, he certainly had no idea what the
value is (neither did anybody else till quite a while later).

3) There was no reason for Galileo to assume that there is anything
especially interesting about the speed of light anyway.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

 

Bhanwara wrote:

You found a piece of shit. Look who's Louis Essen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen

"Later life

Essen spent all his working life at the National Physical Laboratory
but caused some embarrassment to his employers in (1971) when he
published The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis in
which he questioned Einstein's theories.

He retired in 1972 and died in Great Bookham, Surrey."


He went batty late in life, you are born batty, shithead.

 

It is interesting to see that Phineas T Puddleduck
is ignorant of the fact that Galileo discovered over 300 years ago
that acceleration affected the periods of oscillating systems,
and that the "Galileo Effect" is sometimes called
"gravitational red shift".

Apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that the names applied to things vary in time and space.

And apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that the term "red shift" came about when people observed
that the spectral lines in star light was shifted, and that the term
"red shift" began to also be applied to the Galileo effect.

And apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that most of the "red shift" that he is referring to
is a function of distance, and relative velocity,
and should properly be called the Doppler and Hubble effects.

In other words, the Galileo Effect is a function of acceleration,
the Doppler Effect is a function of relative velocity,
and the Hubble Effect is a function of distance.

I suggest that Phineas T Puddleduck is wasting his
time, money, and mind on trying to rationalize an auguring system,
and that he would be better served to
use his time, money and mind on understanding and using
models that correlate one physical property to another,
and provide him with the tools to change, rather than augur,
his environment.

I dare say that one could find correlations between
the entrails of a chicken and a few celestial events,
but what good would it serve?

Rational, intelligent, practical, PRODUCTIVE people
use models that allow them to monitor and change
their environment, not augur it from God's point of view.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

In the early 1600s, Galileo and an assistant tried to measure the speed
of light. They stood on different hilltops, each holding a shuttered
lantern. Galileo would open his shutter, and, as soon as his assistant
saw the flash, he would open his shutter. At a distance of less than a
mile, Galileo could detect no delay in the round-trip time greater than
when he and the assistant were only a few yards apart. While he could
reach no conclusion on whether light propagated instantaneously, he
recognized that the distance between the hilltops was perhaps too small
for a good measurement.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Post your sources the equation is from Galileo.

I suggest you're an idiot.