Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Comparison Between Economic's And Physic's Theories


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#18 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:54 PM

1) OK, so what is this" proof"? Can you provide a link or further details so that we can read about it? If it has been "suppressed", how is it you know about it? And if you know about it, you can share it with us, so that it is no longer "suppressed". 

 

Also, how do you account for the fact that relativity is so successful, if its fundamental premise is actually wrong? Some examples:

2) - our GPS systems work, and they depend on relativity to do so.

3) - the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is exactly what relativity predicts.

4) - the mass defect in atomic nuclei fits the formula for mass-energy derived from relativity.

5) - the lifetime of muons from cosmic rays is increased in line with the predictions of relativity

6) ...and so on.  

 

7) Or are all these phenomena fakes, dreamt up by some sort of world Jewish conspiracy, or something?

 

1) Classified as military secret, as every scientific activity conducted by military at both sides of the Cold War, since 1945,

    and specially in the period 1939-1945 (try to find a scientific paper of value within this period).

   You can read (available for download) the book 'The farce of physics', written by Bryan G. Wallace and published in  1994.

 

2) GPS doesn't depend on relativity, in particular 1905 STR. Gravitational effects are explained by newtonian physics and, IF

    THEY WEREN'T, would be corrected as a distortion of unknown origin, and solved as 100's of other phenomena in technology,

    just by adjusting the average shift. STR doesn't apply and doesn't work either, as 36 different reference platforms are synchronized

    by a couple of fixed stations at Earth, all of them at once each day.

 

3) Mercury's perihelion was exactly explained by Gerber in 1897, and his non-relativistic formula was EXACTLY copied by Einstein in 1915.

    This is a link to his original work, translated to English: http://www.alternati.../Perihelion.htm

                 

                                          The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity

by
Paul Gerber
in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898

  

    And this paper, written 18 years before Einstein proof, was publicly acknowledged by Einstein in 1920, and his validity was denied

    because it was based on Weber's electrodynamics (one more sample of Einstein's arrogance and cynism).

 

4) Are you talking about the famous 200 MeV that are missing at the fission of U-238 since 1939? That's how the history is re-written.

 

     Write exactly "200 MeV" fission at Google ("xyz" forces google to deliver only results where xyz is mentioned). You will get

    about 94,000 results, all of them in accordance with E=mc2. And this is collusion for me.

 

5) The famous muon lifetime of 2.5 microseconds. This link provides an explanation and

    also presents an unsolvable paradox for STR (which invalidates the results):

 

    http://www.alternati...nRelativity.htm

 

 

     MuonR-boxes.jpg

  

 

6) Keep posting examples about STR verified on real experiments. I'll give you counter-examples.

 

7) Not at all. Only are derived from a derranged theory born with the failure of the 2nd. Michelson-Morley

    null experiment, originated in FitzGerald's mind by 1889 (length contraction), which found fertile ground

    into the mind of another looney-tunes person like Lorentz, who had to be saved by Poincaré from his

    mistakes with his relativity theory. By the way, Poincaré was a strong advocate of the changes needed

    at the newtonian physics since mid 1890's, and this line of thought drove his research about relativity,

    which was mathematically far more advanced than Einstein's 1905 STR, and resembled Minkowski 1909

    redefinition of STR.

 

    So, there is a problem with the newtonian physics and actions at a distance, but the road that begun in

    1889 and ended in 1909 has many persons to blame.

 

    This link explain how the things about relativity were derailing time after time:

 

    Michelson, FitzGerald and Lorentz: the origins of relativity revisited

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/987/

    

The only person I exclude from this, even when was wrong, was Henri Poincaré, a true genius.

 

The rest, Einstein included, is garbage.

 

  • Lorentz plagiarized Voigt and Heaviside, and took advantage of Poincaré.
  • Einstein plagiarized Voigt and Poincaré, who named HIS transforms after Lorentz.
  • Minkowski plagiarized Einstein and Poincaré, taking advantage of being in permanent contact with the naive frenchman.
  • Planck helped Einstein and corrected and extended his STR (stealing his thunder), so he wasn't innocent after all. Planck was a role model for Einstein, after his 1900 journey around black body radiation, which was questionable, at least.
  • Etc, etc, etc....

 

If this happened 120 years ago, imagine how the physics machinery works today. Deplorable.

 

So, if there is a conspiracy at physics, it's based on the fear of the unknown. Better to stick to something that "is not even wrong"

instead of circling around figuring out what to do with the darkness that the ignorance poses.

 

Then, scientists, in their (our) short lifespan, can feel that did something instead of nothing, even when they know that what they do is

wrong. As ever was, to get money to pay expenses is more important than to pursue the truth, and has more compensations (fame,

prizes, sense of belonging, etc.)


Edited by rhertz, 08 May 2019 - 09:58 PM.


#19 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1478 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:50 PM

LOL a joke.

 

Where both economics and physics have black holes where normal math doesn't work, both use the same people to do the 'math', both are dependent on the largess of politicians and both claim their systems are 'natural'. 

 

Unfortunately the joke's on us because there is much more money to be made these days by sucking the grease from the bearings of the engine of industry, than by using the machine itself.



#20 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 02:36 AM

Popeye, the standard definition implies control or hierarchy. Sometimes conspiracy is like minded individuals performing tasks in a like minded way. This results in something that looks like there was communication when there was none. You get them to believe in the same thing, they are pre-programmed to try to achieve the same goals. I don't think people are smart enough to orchestrate the massive conspiracy behind relativity but if you teach each person the same pack of lies, the pack mentality takes over. Alternate explanations are I could be wrong, crazy, stupid, wilfully ignorant  or a liar. Sure these seem more likely but it doesn't mean they are definitely true. What is true is that I am an electrical engineer.

 

 

I rest my case! :winknudge:



#21 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:29 AM

 

From the site: http://phys.kent.edu...physicists.html

with 306 famous physicists in the history.

 

These 89 famous physicists didn't won a single Nobel prize:

 

 

  1. George Francis FitzGerald  (was 50 years old by 1901)
  2. John Henry Poynting  (was 50 years old by 1902)
  3. Henri Poincaré  (was 50 years old by 1904)
  4. Janne Rydberg  (was 50 years old by 1904)
  5. Edwin H. Hall  (was 50 years old by 1905)
  6. Wallace Clement Sabine  (was 50 years old by 1918)
  7. Arnold Sommerfeld  (was 50 years old by 1918)
  8. Lise Meitner  (was 50 years old by 1928)
  9. Paul Ehrenfest  (was 50 years old by 1930)
  10. Theodor von Kármán  (was 50 years old by 1931)
  11. Walther Meissner  (was 50 years old by 1932)
  12. Emmy Noether  (was 50 years old by 1932)
  13. Hans Geiger  (was 50 years old by 1933)
  14. Hermann Weyl  (was 50 years old by 1935)
  15. Arthur Jeffrey Dempster  (was 50 years old by 1936)
  16. Henry Moseley  (was 50 years old by 1937)
  17. Sir Robert Watson-Watt  (was 50 years old by 1942)
  18. Satyendra Bose  (was 50 years old by 1944)
  19. Oskar Klein  (was 50 years old by 1944)
  20. Leo Szilard  (was 50 years old by 1948)
  21. Vladimir A. Fock  (was 50 years old by 1948)
  22. Pierre Auger  (was 50 years old by 1949)
  23. Charles Francis Richter  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  24. George E. Uhlenbeck  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  25. Ernst Ising  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  26. Fritz London  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  27. Robert J. Van de Graaf  (was 50 years old by 1951)
  28. Samuel Abraham Goudsmit  (was 50 years old by 1952)
  29. John von Neumann  (was 50 years old by 1953)
  30. Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov  (was 50 years old by 1953)
  31. J. Robert Oppenheimer  (was 50 years old by 1954)
  32. George Gamow  (was 50 years old by 1954)
  33. Sir Rudolf Peierls  (was 50 years old by 1957)
  34. Victor F. Weisskopf  (was 50 years old by 1958)
  35. Edward Teller  (was 50 years old by 1958)
  36. Homi Jehangir Bhabha  (was 50 years old by 1959)
  37. Nikolai N. Bogolubov  (was 50 years old by 1959)
  38. Maurice Goldhaber  (was 50 years old by 1961)
  39. Chien-Shiung Wu  (was 50 years old by 1962)
  40. Robert Rathbun Wilson  (was 50 years old by 1964)
  41. Henry Primakoff  (was 50 years old by 1964)
  42. Robert E. Marshak  (was 50 years old by 1966)
  43. Vitaly L. Ginzburg  (was 50 years old by 1966)
  44. Robert V. Pound  (was 50 years old by 1969)
  45. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky  (was 50 years old by 1969)
  46. Vernon W. Hughes  (was 50 years old by 1971)
  47. Calvin F. Quate  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  48. Lincoln Wolfenstein  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  49. James E. Zimmerman  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  50. Freeman J. Dyson  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  51. Benoit Mandelbrot  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  52. Ernest M. Henley  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  53. Felix Hans Boehm  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  54. Sidney D. Drell  (was 50 years old by 1976)
  55. D. Allan Bromley  (was 50 years old by 1976)
  56. Albert V. Crewe  (was 50 years old by 1977)
  57. John Stewart Bell  (was 50 years old by 1978)
  58. Stanley Mandelstam  (was 50 years old by 1978)
  59. Peter Higgs  (was 50 years old by 1979)
  60. Mildred S. Dresselhaus  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  61. Joel Lebowitz  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  62. John P. Schiffer  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  63. Akito Arima  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  64. T. Kenneth Fowler  (was 50 years old by 1981)
  65. Tullio Regge  (was 50 years old by 1981)
  66. Oscar Wallace Greenberg  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  67. John Dirk Walecka  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  68. Daniel Kleppner  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  69. Jeffrey Goldstone  (was 50 years old by 1983)
  70. John N. Bahcall  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  71. James D. Bjorken  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  72. Ludvig Faddeev  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  73. David J. Thouless  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  74. Peter A. Carruthers  (was 50 years old by 1985)
  75. Gordon A. Baym  (was 50 years old by 1985)
  76. Stanley J. Brodsky  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  77. Kip S. Thorne  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  78. Haim Harari  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  79. Gabriele Veneziano  (was 50 years old by 1992)
  80. Francesco Iachello  (was 50 years old by 1992)
  81. Chris Quigg  (was 50 years old by 1994)
  82. Thomas A. Witten  (was 50 years old by 1994)
  83. Howard Georgi  (was 50 years old by 1997)
  84. Nathan Isgur  (was 50 years old by 1997)
  85. Edward Witten  (was 50 years old by 2001)
  86. Ralph Charles Merkle  (was 50 years old by 2002)
  87. Kim Eric Drexler  (was 50 years old by 2005)
  88. Nathan Seiberg  (was 50 years old by 2006)
  89. Stephen Wolfram  (was 50 years old by 2009)

 

Hahaha, that put 50p in your slot, didn't it? Excellent. Keep 'em coming.  :winknudge:



#22 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:53 AM

Popeye, the standard definition implies control or hierarchy. Sometimes conspiracy is like minded individuals performing tasks in a like minded way. This results in something that looks like there was communication when there was none. You get them to believe in the same thing, they are pre-programmed to try to achieve the same goals. I don't think people are smart enough to orchestrate the massive conspiracy behind relativity but if you teach each person the same pack of lies, the pack mentality takes over. Alternate explanations are I could be wrong, crazy, stupid, wilfully ignorant  or a liar. Sure these seem more likely but it doesn't mean they are definitely true. What is true is that I am an electrical engineer.

 

How did relativity took over? This has been analyzed in depth by professional at History of Sciences.

 

It happens with the help of time, and works in a top-down fashion along the hierarchies of a given community (physicists, in this case).

Also, the lack of new ideas and some defects of old ones (Newton's action at a distance) play an important role. Newcomers want to change

things done by its predecessors, and fall in the trap while they are young. Once they're indoctrinated and are older, it's difficult for them to

modify their points of view without a profound sense of loss and void (for a wasted lifetime), what reinforce their conviction (even when they

know that they made a mistake). It's difficult for a scientists at their 40's or 50's to throw away all what they know and start over.

 

A change in the herd mentality (as Planck famously said) requires that the current generation of scientists be replaced by the next one.

 

This book, which is available for free download (pdf), if you search correctly, is a detailed analysis about the "absorption" of

relativity by academia and other intellectual circles:

 

THE COMPARATIVE RECEPTION OF RELATIVITY
Edited by THOMAS F. GLICK
Department of History, Boston University
© 1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. STANLEY GOLDBERG/Putting New Wine in Old Bottles: The Assimilation of Relativity in America
  2. JOSE M. SANCHEZ-RoN /The Reception of Special Relativity in Great Britain
  3. LEWIS PYENSON / The Relativity Revolution in Germany
  4. MICHEL P A TY / The Scientific Reception of Relativity in France
  5. MICHEL BIEZUNSKI/ Einstein's Reception in Paris in 1922
  6. BARBARA J. REEVES / Einstein Politicized: The Early Reception of Relativity in Italy
  7. THOMAS F. GLICK/Relativity in Spain
  8. V.P. VIZGIN AND G.E. GORELIK/The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR
  9. BRONISLAW SREDNIA WA / The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Poland
  10. TSUTOMU KANEKO/Einstein's Impact on Japanese Intellectuals
  11. THOMAS F. GLICK / Cultural Issues in the Reception of Relativity

For obvious historical reasons, France didn't embrace relativity until 1950. They remember, even today, how Poincaré's theory was stolen.

You can search, at YouTube, videos of lectures from famous french scientists (mathematicians mainly) who don't forget Einstein even today.



#23 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 08:59 AM

I think the Japanese might believe in it.



#24 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 09:00 AM

Hahaha, that put 50p in your slot, didn't it? Excellent. Keep 'em coming.  :winknudge:

 

He did. :cussing:



#25 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 12:58 PM

Rhertz I love your ability to reason and question the status quo, unlike most people on physics forums who just want to circle jerk information. However, I won't be reviewing your proofs for the same reason no one reviews mine. It's because I take for granted that the conspiracy doesn't continue on into fudging experimental results. I haven't performed any of the experiments verifying relativity but I accept they're true on blind faith. The added bonus is my math so cleanly, without contradiction, expresses those physical facts, I won't even look into the possibility that those facts are also fraud. I'm as closed minded as anyone in that regard. Just a word of advice to save your sanity, don't engage with exchemist. He's as thick as the dock post Poyeye's boat is moored to (no double entendre intended).


Edited by ralfcis, 09 May 2019 - 01:17 PM.