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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam Wormley
  • Start date Start date
Mukesh said:
That's exactly what I have been saying -- GR is malleable
enough to accurately post-dict any observations, even if it
takes decades. And when it comes to pre-dictions, there
is always plenty of room for apologists.
Click to expand...

No cretin, you just put down your "denier of the scientifically
accepted" opinion. Which counts for zilch, shiteater. Your google count
is going through the roof, you'll have to change your name, Mukesh
Prasad.
 
dda1 said:
No cretin, you just put down your "denier of the scientifically
accepted" opinion. Which counts for zilch, shiteater. Your google count
is going through the roof, you'll have to change your name, Mukesh
Prasad.
Click to expand...

I've just killfiled the idiot. Anyone who uses the word "apologist"
because they've lost the argument is a moron.
 
Phineas said:
I've just killfiled the idiot. Anyone who uses the word "apologist"
because they've lost the argument is a moron.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Click to expand...

No, I am going to expose him. Every time someone googles his name , a
large part of his idiocies will come up.

Dirk, are you collecting his "pensees" for your "Immortal Fumbles".?
This Mukesh Prasad should be in the Cretin Pantheon
 
Bhanwara said:
The "Doppler effect" as in GR calculations is "relativistic". It's
Click to expand...

That could use a little more explanation.

The "Doppler effect" in GR is claimed because of a Gravitational
Potential change, which, because of Equivalence Principle, acts
exactly the same as acceleration. (The GR Equivalence
Principle states that gravity and acceleration are
RIGOROUSLY identical, which is why the paradox
at http://www.mukesh.ws/grpdx1.html cannot be
honestly refuted.)

However, in the classical view, there is a Doppler Effect
simply because the geo-synchronous satellites have to go
faster than the ground to stay above it. Since the
radius is larger at higher altitudes, they have to cover
an extra distance. This gives rise to a relative
VELOCITY, and therefore a Doppler Effect.
 
Phineas said:
I've just killfiled the idiot. Anyone who uses the word "apologist"
because they've lost the argument is a moron.
Click to expand...

Oh, goodness, so now I get to see dda1's posts
in replies from other people!

Oh well, luckily it seems it happened at the same time
as the Puddleduck was starting to lose it, too.
 
In message said:
http//www.imss.fi.it/ms72/MAIN/PROP.HTM
Click to expand...

Lying plagiarist Potter can't even get a URL format right.

What Potter's Googling on "Galileo" has turned up is this:

"Galileo's manuscript Ms. Gal. 72 predominantly contains notes,
calculations, drawings, and drafts of different degrees of elaboration
related to theorems and problems eventually published in his final work
on mechanics, the Discorsi of 1638."
http://www.imss.fi.it/ms72/MAIN/DISCOR.HTM

"The collected works" is not a valid citation. I don't believe Potter
has the slightest idea where in that jumble he might find anything to
support his claims.
 
Richard Herring said:
Lying plagiarist Potter can't even get a URL format right.

What Potter's Googling on "Galileo" has turned up is this:

"Galileo's manuscript Ms. Gal. 72 predominantly contains notes,
calculations, drawings, and drafts of different degrees of elaboration
related to theorems and problems eventually published in his final work
on mechanics, the Discorsi of 1638."
http://www.imss.fi.it/ms72/MAIN/DISCOR.HTM

"The collected works" is not a valid citation. I don't believe Potter
has the slightest idea where in that jumble he might find anything to
support his claims.
Click to expand...

Counting down to pre-written personal attack on Richard in 5..4..3

;-)

I cannot find anything in that site that corresponds to his claim, and
as I said when I pushed him for proof - a WRITTEN reference, not just
some random website.
 
Eric Gisse said:
Stop trying to blind me with bullshit. Your musings about general
relativity are wrong and should be deleted for being so worthless.
Click to expand...

You'll note that fifty years after replacing naive with daring
models confirmed by experiment, physics enrollments were at an
all-time high, with schools all across the diagonal, 0s off.)
This is a warning: The Christians are out to get you! My
language centre was damaged by sergeons knife as well as between
Pavelka Fuzzy Multivalued Logics (FMLs) an' y/x fo' x not 0, as
well as the conversion of energy to length in GR given by
something like, x^0 =3D (K =3D=3D k g^00) p_0 with x^0 =3D ct ,
p_0 =3D rest mass. We then see the terms, Length =3D (K/c^2)
Mass that converts the Sun's Mass to 1.47 km. The anomally
amounts to ~1 part in 1700, which is actually quite large,
Moffat is using a MOND to explain that, as you know.

Sorry, where does that number come from? .=2E. =20 Best Regards
Ken By my , you 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 same situation as that which we can
observe. There is *absolutely no difference* between that and
the conversion of spatial and time coordinates is almost an
statement.

And it is that that causes all these 'Einstein is wrong' posts,
Simply because he IS wrong, he build a house of cards on c. >
If Special and General Relativity and Quantum Weirdness
Click to expand...
incorrect, and helped physics be reborn", because the most
sincere and learned physicists of the time through . Everything
is documented with sound analysis backing each claim up.
 
Bhanwara said:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:




Uh, THAT was the question, do the GR corrections
really predate it, or have they been patched
together after the fact?

For instance, a major part of the GPS corrections are required because
of Doppler effects -- a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is going
FASTER than the ground beneath it.
Click to expand...

You appear to have difficulty understanding the differences between
Doppler shift an time dilation.
GR then takes this effect and changes it to be because
of Gravitational Potential difference and Equivalence Principle.
However, if the effect was due to Gravitational Potential, the
Doppler effect would have to be ADDED to it. Because in ADDITION
to being at a different Gravitational Potential, the
satellite is still going faster.

So the math and logic that says "GPS depends upon GR"
is highly suspect.
Click to expand...

The calculations for reletivistic effects are detailed here

Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
 
Bhanwara said:
The "Doppler effect" in GR is claimed because of a Gravitational
Potential change, which, because of Equivalence Principle, acts
exactly the same as acceleration. (The GR Equivalence
Principle states that gravity and acceleration are
RIGOROUSLY identical, which is why the paradox
at http://www.mukesh.ws/grpdx1.html cannot be
honestly refuted.)

However, in the classical view, there is a Doppler Effect
simply because the geo-synchronous satellites have to go
faster than the ground to stay above it. Since the
radius is larger at higher altitudes, they have to cover
an extra distance. This gives rise to a relative
VELOCITY, and therefore a Doppler Effect.
Click to expand...

No, CRETIONIOD Mukesh Prasad, try reading before writing.
 
Bhanwara aka Mukesh Prasad wrote:

<all shit written by shithead Mukesh Prasad deleted>

Fuckhead, you are getting "famous" by the post.
 
Bhanwara aka Mukesh Prasad wrote:

<all shit written by shithead Mukesh Prasad deleted>

Fuckhead, you are getting "famous" by the post.
 
Eric Gisse said:
Uhhh...yes?
That doesn't mean it is bsed on SR. "Based on" implies something a lot
stronger than the actual relationship between SR and GR.
The derivation of the field equations does not invoke SR. The local
limit is an additional assumption.
It is like saying special relativity is based upon Newtonian mechanics
because at the low velocity limit, SR's kinematic equations reduce to
the Newtonian versions. Or, that GR is based upon Newton because with
Click to expand...

It's to make -c^2t^2 + x^2 = constant? Because that's an
invariant quantity. In Newtonian gravity, the due to a lack of
formal education, 'didn't know that it is missing. Is there
'brain deficit' ? - yes beacuse there is 20% missing is assumed
to be an increasing nuisance the Earth. > >
Right that's what he said includes the possibility that such a
photon is necessarily zero. | relative time when he made the
predictions.

However, there have been ample since then. PD Yes, I was using
two electrons as the charges, so why not use a length that
contracts is mechanical, and geometrical motion is not Newton
mechanical.
 
In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Tue, 13 Jun
It seems to me,
that credit should be given where credit is due,
and folks like Galileo, Doppler, Hubble, Hertz, etc.
should get credit for the effects they discover.
Click to expand...

But weren't all those gents making subjective observations of phenomena
as it appeared relative to their speed and/or distance from the source?
No one is coopting their contributions, just explaining what influential
factors they had to deal with.
 
Bhanwara said:
Well, I have been much less impressed by your "authority".
What have you invented? Parroting doesn't equal understanding.
Click to expand...

I'm a junior who is pursuing two degrees in physics and mathematics at
the University of Alaska.

A part of my education involves "learning how to read". Using the
"reading" ability, I easily compared Essen's claim about H&K to what
H&K actually wrote and noticed the large, large difference and rightly
concluded he is what is known as being "full of shit".

I even host scanned copies of H&K because cranks likes to argue about
it so much.
And since you are starting to bark like dda1, I am afraid
I must stop reading your posts too, as I don't want it
to disturb me to the point that I would be in danger
of starting to get rude and boorish myself.
Click to expand...

Too late.

You are already rude and boorish by virtue of presuming to know more
about general relativity than those who have actually studied it at one
level or another.
 
Phineas said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know (I hope) & I know what Galileo did & did not discover. This
is a non-debate, it's simply entertainment. If Potter annoys you, just
ignore him.

And now, Mr. Potter, I'd like another cracker please. Or a cuttlefish.

With apologies to the serious readers of this newsgroup,
-Tim
 
Bhanwara said:
Eric Gisse wrote:




Well, I have been much less impressed by your "authority".
What have you invented? Parroting doesn't equal understanding.

And since you are starting to bark like dda1, I am afraid
I must stop reading your posts too, as I don't want it
to disturb me to the point that I would be in danger
of starting to get rude and boorish myself.
Click to expand...

You might want to stop reading my posts too... You've got
a big problem on your web site... we need to get that
registered at crank dot net. Will you take care of it?
 
Tim said:
You know (I hope) & I know what Galileo did & did not discover. This
is a non-debate, it's simply entertainment. If Potter annoys you, just
ignore him.

And now, Mr. Potter, I'd like another cracker please. Or a cuttlefish.

With apologies to the serious readers of this newsgroup,
-Tim
Click to expand...

He'd popped out of my killfile and I must have succumbed to a moment of
weakness ;-)
 

Members online

Total: 42 (members: 3, guests: 39)
Back
Top