Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?

electromagnetism electric current electricity Faradays law physics

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#35 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted 05 August 2020 - 10:15 PM

you are an idiot.

really? curved spacetime is your idea of reality?

 

.


You're a crank. Welcome to crank land everyone.

 

Both of you should try to go for the concept more than the person putting it forward. :)

The big thing in my opinion is simply "how accurate is the prediction when you feed it 5 month old data and compare to "right now." How close do you think is sigificant?

When you take a multymeter and some wire, and do a predictable action do you get predictable results?  Whatever imagery is used to explain, what maters is the observable results, right? Who's got those in their pocket?



#36 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:17 AM

.

 


 

Whatever imagery is used to explain, what maters is the observable results, right? 

Wrong.  A incorrect hypothesis can even provide reasonable predictions, but that not a reason to embrace the hypothesis.

But If your hypothesis is wrong, contradictory, illogical, contains math errors, and is irrational in both development and conclusion, then no magically correct prediction can possibly follow.

 

ALL of Einsteins predictions are better explained by classical Physics, all of them. And all of Einsteins predictions involve measuring minuscule variations that could be interpreted either way.

 

Like the old saying goes, "Statistics don't lie, but Statisticians do."

Its the same with Math based Physics, it can be twisted which ever way you want.

Math can be used to support almost  any theory, with an accuracy of 34 decimal places, but wrong never-the-less.

 

Like GPS... it is claimed that we must have absolute perfection in the Math and clocks accuracy, and that's why we need Special Relativity and General Relativity, However, while claiming the need for absolute perfection and extreme accuracy in Math for the clocks going slower due to SR, it suddenly is not at all important that those clocks don't fit the stringent rules for the Math of Einsteins SR.  The primary stringent condition is that the Math and effect is ONLY for Inertial Frames. Yet the Satellites, the earth and the cars on the Earth are all in Accelerating Frames.  But don't worry about it, just pronounce that its not important, when it suits us, but very important other times.

Also, Einstein  stated that his SR is INVALID in any inertial frame if its in any gravitational region. which is the Earth and the satellites. They are in several gravitational fields.

Einstein also stated that the speed of Light was NOT CONSTANT in any area where there was gravitational forces.

 

But lets not worry about it, but we do need 100% super accuracy right?  So a rough enough guesstimate and some complicated math is going to give the results you want to see. That does not sound like much of a scientific based method to me.

 

You fools say one thing but do the opposite.  

 

I can predict that the moon will pas overhead tomorrow night, with math support, but claim that its because millions of tiny invisible Fairies are carrying it. According to you, that's a good hypothesis, because predictions...


Edited by marcospolo, Yesterday, 01:21 AM.


#37 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:20 AM

So let's get some perspective here.

You are repeating literally insane claims, such as a conceptual mathematically curved geometry you call spacetime, (itself a nonsense word) saying thaat this ilusionary concept that only exists on your blackboard, is responsible for planets curved orbits.

 

Any yet you have the gall to suggest that I am the crank?

 

Im sorry, but you suffer big time from Dunning Kruger, and are delusional.

 

Since you cross talked and took over my post to MitkoGorgiev I will respond. Space-time curvatures are a proven fact. They're observed from satellite time differences from the surface of the earth and black hole light bending. What evidence do you have to support your claims that Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and Bohr are frauds? None.

 

But that's not what we are here to discuss which means your trolling instead of discussing the topic of this thread.



#38 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:51 PM


Like GPS... the Satellites, the earth and the cars on the Earth are all in Accelerating Frames.  But don't worry about it, just pronounce that its not important, when it suits us, but very important other times.
 

Not really true? Satellites are inertial unless they are at that moment using fuel to accelerate, same with cars. I'm trying to think of what acceleration is applied to the 3rd rock from the sun too...

Do you even know what the word you're using means, or are you throwing buzz-words in a bowl and mixing them together into a salad?



#39 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:16 PM

Not really true? Satellites are inertial unless they are at that moment using fuel to accelerate, same with cars. I'm trying to think of what acceleration is applied to the 3rd rock from the sun too...

Do you even know what the word you're using means, or are you throwing buzz-words in a bowl and mixing them together into a salad?

You clearly do not know what inertial means.

Your wacky theory DEMAND inertial, but when pressed, you can simply dump inertial and claim that accelerating is now magically inertial.

 

What you are claiming is that ANY accelerating motion is really NOT accelerating motion at all!  No, its just a series of little short inertial motions all added end to end.

 

But in the world of ACTUAL RATIONAL PHYSICS, it is well known that ANY NON LINEAR movement is classified as being an "acceleration".

That would be your satellites, and the Earth, and the cars on the Earth, and the Sun. ALL are accelerating framed motions.

 

There is practically NO true INERTIAL motions, in Nature, And Einstein's theory specifically relates ONLY to TRUE inertial motion, and the Math and consequences are ONLY VALID for INERTIAL.

 

You are saying stuff that only a Math based Pseudo-Physicist would say.

 

A real Physicist knows the difference between Inertial and Accelerating.

 

Gahd, you reveal your lack of knowledge with your statements.

please just go play with your Casio, when the discussion comes to Physics.



#40 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:31 PM

Since you cross talked and took over my post to MitkoGorgiev I will respond. Space-time curvatures are a proven fact. They're observed from satellite time differences from the surface of the earth and black hole light bending. What evidence do you have to support your claims that Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and Bohr are frauds? None.

 

But that's not what we are here to discuss which means your trolling instead of discussing the topic of this thread.

Its not cross talk, as the subject matter is all interwoven with the one big lie of Relativity.

 

No-one has any observational evidence for a math only concept called "spacetime". You are sadly mistaken to think or suggest that there is any supporting evidence ever witnessed by anyone. (unless its the same grade of "witness" that people use when they have a vision of the virgin Mary.

 

The fantasy abstract theories you mention, "Time Dilating",  "Black Holes", are truly concept only believed by real devote members of the Cult of Scientist.

You reefer to these things as if they are actually REAL!

 

Then you foolishly believe that some observation can be attributed to these fantasy constructs.

 

So you have a Photoshop image supposedly based on some microwave radiation readings, which you claim is a Black Hole, but  if its not a complete fraud, it could just be an image of pretty well anything, it does not need to be a "black Hole".  

 I was walking  in the bush the other day, and I saw something... I have no idea what it was, so I put it down to yet more evidence for black holes.

 

You can tell if someone is a fraud or has just made grave errors of judgment by the level of ridiculousness of their claims.

High on the list of ridiculousness are the claims of  Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and Bohr, and Minkowski.

Maxwell not so much, but he was foolish to place so much weight behind his Math, so his conclusion were not based on rational Physics but wherever the Math took him.

 

From that way of thinking we now have stupid beliefs such as the Big Bang.



#41 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:34 PM

You clearly do not know what inertial means.

Your wacky theory DEMAND inertial, but when pressed, you can simply dump inertial and claim that accelerating is now magically inertial.

 

What you are claiming is that ANY accelerating motion is really NOT accelerating motion at all!  No, its just a series of little short inertial motions all added end to end.

 

But in the world of ACTUAL RATIONAL PHYSICS, it is well known that ANY NON LINEAR movement is classified as being an "acceleration".

That would be your satellites, and the Earth, and the cars on the Earth, and the Sun. ALL are accelerating framed motions.

 

There is practically NO true INERTIAL motions, in Nature, And Einstein's theory specifically relates ONLY to TRUE inertial motion, and the Math and consequences are ONLY VALID for INERTIAL.

 

You are saying stuff that only a Math based Pseudo-Physicist would say.

 

A real Physicist knows the difference between Inertial and Accelerating.

 

Gahd, you reveal your lack of knowledge with your statements.

please just go play with your Casio, when the discussion comes to Physics.

How about you explain with a predictive method exactly what you're getting at? I'm seeing a kind of solipsism from what you're writing. Not the worst thing from a philosophy perspective, but very much against the "does it predict" way I tend to look at things.

Weather you view space as curved, density, whirlpool, or whatever metal crutch to let a brain wired to avoid lions on the savanna intuit unseen forces, it's the predictive results that matter. I've yet to see you put forward any of those? 

You seem to be arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of a previous exchange we've had: that gravitation is now intrinsically equal to acceleration, the "sealed elevator" problem. How can you argue on one hand they are NOT the same, and now change camps and claim they ARE the same out of convenience?



#42 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:09 PM

How about you explain with a predictive method exactly what you're getting at? I'm seeing a kind of solipsism from what you're writing. Not the worst thing from a philosophy perspective, but very much against the "does it predict" way I tend to look at things.

Weather you view space as curved, density, whirlpool, or whatever metal crutch to let a brain wired to avoid lions on the savanna intuit unseen forces, it's the predictive results that matter. I've yet to see you put forward any of those? 

You seem to be arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of a previous exchange we've had: that gravitation is now intrinsically equal to acceleration, the "sealed elevator" problem. How can you argue on one hand they are NOT the same, and now change camps and claim they ARE the same out of convenience?

Its one thing to develop an equation to calculate how fast a ball will be moving at a specified height drop, in a specified gravity.  We can easily compare measured results with the formula. Still that does not mean that the guy had a sound hypothesis as to what makes that ball accelerate in gravity in the first place, it only means that his equation can provide a decent replication of what we actually observe and measure.

 

But, when your hypothesis involves speculating about what people 20 million lights years away are watching on TV right now, well this is now just hyperbole.

Einsteins theory about curved spacetime is just such hyperbole.

 

We can never actually correctly test his theories, the necessary laboratory is not existing.

And considering that Einstein's curved spacetime is ONLY MATH, and is NOT BASED ON OBSERVATION, we don' really need to be discussing his ideas as an exercise in the study of Physics 

 

There is NOTHING anyone has ever observed that supports Einsteins theories. 

No one has concrete evidence for the existence of a Black Hole, the best they have a picture of a SOMETHING. Someone will need to fly over there , and really conduct actual physical survey of the thing, because looking from light years away is not really satisfactory for Physics.

 

Light bends around the sun? Yep, and it does this because of classical principals of Optics.

 

Mercury's wobble?  Its also explained by classical Physics. (just not in Newtons or Einstein's day)

 

Muon's live too long? Therefore Time must dilate for them... NOPE, they live long enough to do what they do. Its the Scientists that have declared that they should not reach sea level in such numbers.

 

Why do they declare this? Because they got something wrong with they hypothesis, that's why.  No need to warp tine and distance  just because a couple of scientists have got some mistake in their thinking.

 

Cosmological science is really totally a fu#ked up branch of Physics now.

 

They can "find" whatever they want to find, given enough budget and time. 

 

So your idea of having observed evidence that matches the predictions is rubbish. (unless it involves something testable right here, in our own environment.)

 

No one has tested what the gravity is like in another galaxy, we ASSUME we can figure it out, based on nothing other than prior assumptions and a lot of guesswork.

 

One weak theory built on a previous weak theory, that's cosmology.

 

Gravity is not the same as acceleration, even in an enclosed elevator.

But surely its crazy to suggest that because we cant detect some difference, then we need some cock and bull new revision of all of Physics.

Einsteins theories are based solely on maintaining ignorance of one observer, whilst allowing the other observer to posses that knowledge the other lacks.

 

That is not Science.

 

Unless you can explain your way around that issue, then you need to admit that Einstein's theories are garbage. 



#43 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted Today, 02:31 AM

 

 

Its one thing to develop an equation to calculate how fast a ball will be moving at a specified height drop, in a specified gravity.  We can easily compare measured results with the formula. Still that does not mean that the guy had a sound hypothesis as to what makes that ball accelerate in gravity in the first place, it only means that his equation can provide a decent replication of what we actually observe and measure.

 

I think you are sort of misunderstanding what is going on here, and what science is really about.

 

The equations that Newton developed to describe something falling was 100% derived from observation, they measured it and from those observations he developed the equation.

 

It does not address at all the actual mechanism that causes the observed falling, the best he does is say 'it is AS IF a FORCE was pushing or pulling on the object'.

 

So he says it is 'like a force' but go into no detail about what the force is or how that force actually effects the matter. He does label that force 'gravity' though. 

 

So the equation F = G m1m2/r just uses 'force' and 'something to do with the masses of the objects.

 

What is the force?, how does that force work? He does not care and he does not address that at all. It's just 'it acts 'AS IF IT IS A FORCE'..

That does not mean Newton is wrong, it just means that he did not address the root cause or mechanism of what we observe as gravity. 

 

 

But, when your hypothesis involves speculating about what people 20 million lights years away are watching on TV right now, well this is now just hyperbole.

Einsteins theory about curved spacetime is just such hyperbole.

 

In science, you develop a 'guess' a hypothesis about something, you then 'calculate the consequences' of that guess, then you 'compare with nature' (by measurement and observation). 

 

That is the scientific method, 'Guess, calculate consequences, compare with nature' if your comparison with nature agrees with the calculated consequences then you can say that at least for now your hypothesis MIGHT be correct.

 

Speculating about what someone is watching on TV is not science and cannot be tested, (or calculated). 

 

I DO NOT think you can place Einstein's relativity in the same boat as what someone is watching on TV.

 

Einstein developed a hypothesis, he calculated the consequences, then the consequences was compared to nature, and nature said that SO FAR the hypothesis agrees with nature.

 

Einstein's relativity is testable and falsifiable, what someone in another galaxy is watching on TV is not.

 

 

 

We can never actually correctly test his theories, the necessary laboratory is not existing.

 

That is 100% incorrect:

 

The fact that clocks run at different rates as predicted by relativity has been shown to be correct, that is an observation that shows that relativity's 'calculated consequences' match and agree with nature (through observation and measurement).

 

Gravitation shift of light can be observed and easily measured IN A LAB! And it is agreeance with the principles of relativity.

 

 

 

And considering that Einstein's curved spacetime is ONLY MATH, and is NOT BASED ON OBSERVATION, we don' really need to be discussing his ideas as an exercise in the study of Physics

 

Ok 'Curved spacetime', I can somewhat agree with you here, I don't think space is curved, I think the geometrical mathematical treatment is a clunky and cumbersome method for understanding what space and time and 'gravity' is and how it works.

 

You are also correct that NO measure of any space curvature has been observed... (this is called 'THE FLATTNESS PROBLEM'), 

But that does not for a second mean that relativity is wrong, no observations has so far shown that relativity as on any scale to be wrong.

Even if the results is from a very roundabout mathematical methodology. 

 

I think the 'flatness problem' is NOT a problem, I do not think space is curved or warped, but it certainly IS relative (but space is flat, that's just what we observe).

 

 

 

There is NOTHING anyone has ever observed that supports Einsteins theories. 

 

Incorrect, there is a vast body of observations that confirm the relative nature of space (and time). Just google 'tests of relativity' and see for yourself.

 

Einstein shift of light

Shapiro delay

Gravitational lensing

Planetary precession

Time and Space length variance. 

 

we can easily observe all these things, all these observations support the theory that a property of space and time is relativity. 

 

 

 

No one has concrete evidence for the existence of a Black Hole, the best they have a picture of a SOMETHING. Someone will need to fly over there , and really conduct actual physical survey of the thing, because looking from light years away is not really satisfactory for Physics.

 

Sort of but no: We DO NOT have concrete evidence that black holes are 'classic black holes' with singularities, and event horizons where space and time curve in on itself. That is pure speculation.

 

But: We DO KNOW, that there are massive objects in space that do not emit visible light. That is about the limit of what we actually know about objects we call 'black holes'.

 

​I propose the terms "Massive non-luminous objects" NMO's.. !!!

 

We know NMO's exist, because we see how other objects (that we can see) interacts and moves in the space around these massive non-luminous objects (formally known as black holes).

 

This is where I agree with you, when you apply mathematics with speculation and you get crazy results that usually means your speculation is incorrect, so if you apply the equations of relativity and speculate that with matter density you also get gravity density (we do not observe that effect anywhere), and you make density 'infinite' (or you introduce zero's for volume), the results of your equations will be garbage (garbage in, garbage out). 

 

Generally science tries to avoid that wild speculation, and tries to avoid infinities, but I feel for you in that in theoretical physics and cosmology it has become "OK" for them to do that and allow those impossibilities.

 

So black holes are far as we know is a collection of a lot of mass, but does not emit visible light.

 

 

 

Light bends around the sun? Yep, and it does this because of classical principals of Optics.

 

Yes, it does, you are correct, the those principles of optics IS THE RESULT OF RELATIVTY.

 

How a glass lens bends light (optics 101 here), is that there is a difference in the TRANSIT TIME of light through glass and air, glass has a different refractive index to light. So with a convex lens the thickest glass is directly below the focus point and the glass gets thinner away from that point. 

 

The difference in the transit time of the light is aligned by the thickness of the glass and the distance to the focus point, making the TRANSIT time of the light the same time. 

 

Gravitational lensing works exactly the same way, space is longer closer to the mass and shorter further away, the different length of space changes the TRANSIT TIME of the light. (Shapiro delay). The change in transit time gives us the lensing effect. 

 

You do not need curved space, you just need space of varying length, we observe that space (and time) has varying length.. 

 

 

 

Mercury's wobble?  Its also explained by classical Physics. (just not in Newtons or Einstein's day)

 

It is not explained by classical physics, however, it is explained in relativistic physics.

 

 

Muon's live too long? Therefore Time must dilate for them... NOPE, they live long enough to do what they do. Its the Scientists that have declared that they should not reach sea level in such numbers.

 

Why do they declare this? Because they got something wrong with they hypothesis, that's why.  No need to warp tine and distance  just because a couple of scientists have got some mistake in their thinking.

 

They declare this because that is what they observe, this is not about 'some people making a mistake in their thinking', or an incorrect hypothesis, the observation comes first, the hypothesis follows that. Science just tries to explain what we see (and guess at what we don't). 

 

 

 

Cosmological science is really totally a fu#ked up branch of Physics now.

 

I tend to complete agree on this, as is a lot of theoretical physics (including quantum mechanics), there is a crisis in physics and cosmology, and it feels more like FOX news than real science. 

 

This is a big reason why we have people like yourself, you are angry and upset, and I think for good reason, I don't agree with many of your conclusions, but there are vast numbers of people who have just give up on science because of the bull dung and hype. 

 

(a lot of that also comes from academic elitism, the 'we'll if you don't have advanced degrees is xxxx you can't possibly understand'..)

 

 

 

They can "find" whatever they want to find, given enough budget and time. 

 

They don't even need to find it, you could spend your entire career and millions of dollars looking for magic fairy dust (dark matter), and dark matter may not exist (probably does not exist). But you get a job and good pay and a machine that goes 'bing'.

 

 

 

So your idea of having observed evidence that matches the predictions is rubbish. (unless it involves something testable right here, in our own environment.)

 

You will notice that the 'practical sciences' does not have this problem, that problems only occur when you start guessing and speculating, (such as with NMO's --- black holes). 

 

But we can observe evidence that fits the predictions of relativity, we can test that model and the observations so far confirm the model to be correct. (even if that model is calculated using complex geometrical calculus, in a complex roundabout manner). 

 

 

 

No one has tested what the gravity is like in another galaxy, we ASSUME we can figure it out, based on nothing other than prior assumptions and a lot of guesswork.

 

We can't even test what gravity is like in any galaxy (including our own), galaxies operate on time scales that means we cannot really know that much about how they operate. 

 

We don't even know if we are observing the rotation rate of a far away galaxy, as before the time scales are just too vast and we do not really know what we are measuring when we look at Doppler shift and derive from that rotation speed. 

So I sort of somewhat agree with this comment.

 

 

 

One weak theory built on a previous weak theory, that's cosmology.

 

That is a problem, you've noticed a 'layering' of models and theories, and it does happen a lot, Newtonian dynamics and relativity is the example here that upsets you. 

When I say that "Newton is wrong" people get upset, they try to justify Newton's gravity with relativity (that I know is right), the 3 dimensional geometric treatment of relativity is a direct result of 'layering Newtonian Physics' over relativity. 

 

Previous 'weak' (incorrect) theories needs to go Bye Bye.. A new theory should be 'stand alone' and complete in its own right (and consistent).

 

 

 

Gravity is not the same as acceleration, even in an enclosed elevator.

 

That is true, equivalence principle be damned.. In a gravitational field you will be able to observe 'tidal forces' that you will not observe in acceleration, so if you are in a box, you put an atomic clock on the roof of the box and one on the floor over time you will see a difference is time between the two clocks IF you are in a gravitational field, if your box is accelerating you will not observe a difference in time. 

 

 

 

But surely its crazy to suggest that because we cant detect some difference, then we need some cock and bull new revision of all of Physics.

 

If you are allowed to make observations, you can detect a difference, as I explained above. (tidal forces). The equivalence principles does not hold.

 

 

Einsteins theories are based solely on maintaining ignorance of one observer, whilst allowing the other observer to posses that knowledge the other lacks

 

Relativity is observer independent, nature does what it does, observed or not, understood or not. 

 

 

That is not Science.

 

Unless you can explain your way around that issue, then you need to admit that Einstein's theories are garbage. 

 

Science is what nature does, at least science is an attempt to explain the 'nature of nature', but it does not DEFINE what nature does, a language of science is mathematics. But it is ONLY a language, and with any language it can say what is or it can say complete garbage or it can lie. Math can be fact or fiction, because it is just a language. And Science is just a method of reasoning. 

 

Yes, sadly there is a lot of dogma in science, there is a lot that is wrong, and there is a lot of wild speculation and guess work that makes no actual sense. (and some scientists are just fine what that... but not me.. or you apparently).. 

 

So I agree with you on a few things, but I have to call out where you are factually wrong.. (and also where you are right). 



#44 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Today, 06:19 AM

Mutex,

 

 “Newton does not address at all the actual mechanism that causes the observed falling”

 

Neither does Einstein. At no time does Einstein explain how the “root cause” of gravity works. Calling it “curved spacetime”, is just relabelling it, not explaining it.

Curved spacetime is not able to explain what caused the gravitational pull we observe. At least Newton was wise enough to say that he offers no explanation, unlike Einstein who claims to have it solved, but still actually does not explain how the effect works.

 

“Einstein's relativity is testable and falsifiable, what someone in another galaxy is watching on TV is not.”

 

All Einstein’s so called “evidential proofs” involve making observations of things that may as well be sitting on top someone’s TV in another galaxy.

To “make the observation” one must already make a whole series of prior assumptions, and use a series of questionable rules before finally INTEPRETING the information in a favourable light.

But, another observer, with a slightly different understanding, with slightly different assumptions, and slightly different interpretations, will come up with a totally different  conclusion as to the meaning of the observation.

 

This is because ALL EVIDENCE MUST be INTEPRETED, and it’s for this reason we can never say that evidence is able to provide absolute PROOF.  At best it can prove a hypothesis is wrong, but never right.

 

“The fact that clocks run at different rates as predicted by relativity….”

 

Yes, clocks and physical processes DO change their rates according to the changes in the physical surroundings, (as predicted by CLASSICAL Physics) but it’s a leap of pure FAITH to claim that a clock that is not maintaining accuracy when exposed to different physical forces, MEANS that TIME itself has been altered.

 

Einstein claims the clock is running correctly, but TIME itself is altered. There is a very big difference.

 

When was gravitational red or blue **** demonstrated in a LAB?

To do that, you have placed the Lab in several different gravitational fields? I don’t think so. Nope, its another example of measuring the impossibly tiny over an impossibly time amount of time I bet. The results can and have been fudged, just like Eddington cherry picked those photo plates and discarded the ones he did not like.

 

There IS a conspiracy by those who hold the purse strings of Universities, to keep the myth of Einstein’s theories alive. The claimed experiment that support Einstein are all very questionable and almost impossible for anyone else to match, and never matched by people who have already discovered that Einstein is wrong. Only fan boys seem to be able to conduct these experiments.

Education is both a big business, as well as being a means of literal mind control. Stupid distracted people are easy to control.

 

“I don't think space is curved “

 

So you still believe that Einstein is right, even though you choose to discard his most famous discovery? That of curved spacetime!

 

If you toss that out, then there is nothing remaining of Einstein’s theories to hang on to. You cant keep some of the Math based squarely on curved spacetime, if you discard the curves spacetime!

This is irrational of you.

 

Everything IS relative, but just not in the wacky way that Einstein claims.

 

“Einstein shift of light

Shapiro delay

Gravitational lensing

Planetary precession

Time and Space length variance. 

 

All these so called evidences ARE more easily explained by classical Physics.

 

No one ever has really experienced Time dilation, they have witnessed clocks drift due to known changes in physical conditions locally, but no one has experienced any Time dilation, ever. Neither has anyone ever witnessed a length of an object shrink.

Or the distance between two objects shrink.

 

Neither have they witnesses the Mass of an object increase.

 

Any experiment is always involving interpreting the indirect effects of some invisible sub atomic particle that is moving at some calculated speed, and the final results involve measurement of impossibly tiny time periods, and impossibly tiny values.

There is just sooooo much room for alternative explanations that its not even funny.

 

“But: We DO KNOW, that there are massive objects in space that do not emit visible light”

 

No, no we don’t know any such thing.  Relativists ASSUME they understand, and choose to interpret all observations through Einstein coloured glasses, literally forcing all results to conform to their pre set minds.

You ASSUME that there must be massive objects that you can’t see… WHY? Because you assume that some visible objects are solid matter, are a certain distance away, are a certain size, and thus are moving at a certain speed. Then you ASSUME that you KNOW their Mass, and you ASSUME that Mass is definitely in a fixed relationship with gravity, so from there, you calculate that there should be something massive nearby, but you cant see it.

 

I would have thought that a real cosmologist would see the weird action, realize that his assumptions about distance, speed, gravity, mass do not account for the motion observed, so rather than hanging on like grim death to his previous ASSUMPTIONS, a real scientist should simply say, Well, WE DON’T KNOW, but clearly there is NO MASSIVE OBJECT THERE, no black holes, worm hole, or parallel universe.  

But the quack Einstein scientist is not content to rest there, announcing that invisible things exist, (black holes) but going on to announce that because of all his prior ASSUMPTIONS, 93 % of the whole fu#king universe is MISSING, so Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is the ONLY solution.

A sane scientist would surely just say, WE MUST BE WRONG with our ASSUMPTIONS, because our model predictions DO NOT MATCH WHAT WE OBSERVE.

 

But no, they don’t do this, which was supposed to be the “scientific method”.

 

“, the principles of optics IS THE RESULT OF RELATIVTY…… You do not need curved space, you just need space of varying length, we observe that space (and time) has varying length”

 

Nope, your wrong again.

 

Optics owes nothing to Einstein’s warping of spacetime,  Classical Physics explains why light bends when entering different materials.

 

As you don’t actually believe in Einstein’s theory, (you reject curved spacetime) you now have to invent a new Physics all of your own designs.

 

How do you account for a Space and a Time that has a varying length and duration?

This is a brand new hypothesis you have… so let’s hear it!

This will be entertaining I’m sure.

 

The precession of Mercury’s orbit HAS been explained with classical Physics, just not in Newtons or Einstein’s day. You need to catch up with more recent Physics.

 

Einstein’s explanation is rubbish, on account to of the fact that his hypothesis is unable to pass any critical review.

 

(Einstein’s relativistic explanation claims that Mercury is stationary, and it’s the Earth and whole rest of the solar system that’s got a really weird orbit. (because Relativity is a two way street, so I demand you look at it from the less popular observers frame of reference, the guy sitting on Mercury, how KNOWS he is not moving, everything else is, so he gets to apply all of Einstein’s math….)

 

“a lot of theoretical physics (including quantum mechanics), feels more like FOX news than real science. “

 

How dare you go against the established Physics of the Authorities! Are you some kind of QUACK?

 

“When I say that "Newton is wrong" people get upset, they try to justify Newton's gravity with relativity (that I know is right),”

 

Well, as you have already discarded Quantum Physics and half of Cosmology, along with the whole reason why Einstein developed his Math for spacetime, you are now officially a Quack, and a Crank and cant be trusted about anything. So there is no way you can still possibly KNOW that Relativity is right, when you discard the hypothesis that created it. Did Einstein just accidently invent the equations by sheer random scribble of his blackboard?

 

“Relativity is observer independent, nature does what it does, observed or not, understood or not. “

 

 Therefore the relativity you speak of here cannot be Einstein’s relativity but Galileo’s relativity, which alone is observer independent.

 

Einstein’s relativity claims that Physics remains the same in all inertial frames, but then immediately destroys that claim by saying that Time, Length and Mass DO NOT remain the same in the very same inertial frames. But change according to a remote observer.

 

” Science is what nature does, at least science is an attempt to explain the 'nature of nature', but it does not DEFINE what nature does, a language of science is mathematics.”

 

Science is now not even trying anymore to explain what we observe, which was the original science, the “Natural Sciences”.

These days, (since the late 1800’s)  explaining Observations has been relegated to the trash bin, to be replaced by Mathematicians deciding what exists, then going out and trying to force any experiment, whoever fantastic)  to find some tiny measure of support for the math discovery, and that’s sufficient for a Nobel Prize.

 

Several times now the Nobel prize for Physics has gone to just simple minded Mathematicians.

 

The biggest LIE of Science is the claim that is not just big business, and also that Math is the all important gold standard.

 

Math is critical for one thing,  Mathematics.

 

Physics can live without it.

Physics is supposed to EXPLAIN WHAT and HOW things do what we OBSERVE them doing.  WHAT and HOW explanations don't need Math.

 

This is basic truth but has been lost from Science.

But at least you admitted that I got a few things right.



#45 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted Today, 08:30 AM

 

Neither does Einstein. At no time does Einstein explain how the “root cause” of gravity works. Calling it “curved spacetime”, is just relabelling it, not explaining it.

Curved spacetime is not able to explain what caused the gravitational pull we observe. At least Newton was wise enough to say that he offers no explanation, unlike Einstein who claims to have it solved, but still actually does not explain how the effect works.

 

Yes, that's right, 'curved or warped' spacetime does not do a good job at all at explaining what things orbit and why things fall down, that does not mean relativity is wrong, but as I said earlier I do feel that the 3D geometrical treatment of relativity is not a good description, but it does make some progress.

 

With Newtonian gravity, gravity is a 'force' (or force like) thing or effect between two (or more) bodies of mass, however in relativity, gravity is considered a property of space.

 

There is a significant conceptional difference between the two, Newton thinks that matter effects matter, and Einstein thinks that matter changes space and whatever shares that space also reacts to that change in space.

 

Newton is matter to matter, Einstein is Matter to space and space to matter. 

 

In relativity the way it is normally treated is that mass or matter changes the SHAPE of SPACE, giving us a curved or warped space. 

But as you said that does not really explain why or HOW a rock falls when you pick it up and let it go. 

 

The other problem with curved space, is that we do not observe that space is in fact curved.

There is also a problem when you consider this question:

 

"IF space is curved, what about it is actually curved?" when you plot space on a graph and you say that is curved space what value or property are you plotting (that makes a curved line)?

 

How does that curvature explain why the rock falls?

 

That is why I feel that the evidence and observations shows that relativity is correct, however, I am a 'flat space'er', I think that space is flat, (not geometrical in nature). 

 

So if you consider that matter changes some property of space (but not its shape) you can start to come up with models using 'flat' space, that does describe a mechanism that explains why a rock falls when you let it go.

 

That is why I consider space to have a dimension like the dimensions of your room, that is space HAS A LENGTH, so in this case matter/mass give space this length property (instead of a curvature property), so with relativity the length of a 1 meter ruler might be different in different locations.

 

The ruler will be longer at the center of the earth that at the surface of the earth, (if measured from the other location, so relatively longer/shorter). 

We know this is how it actually works because the speed of light is constant, so the length of space and the length of time are the same things, the length of space gives us the length of time. (that we call spacetime, time derived from the length of space).

 

Like a light year, that is the length of space traveled in the time of 1 year, the length of space is measured by the length of time and vice versa. 

 

 

Any experiment is always involving interpreting the indirect effects of some invisible sub atomic particle that is moving at some calculated speed, and the final results involve measurement of impossibly tiny time periods, and impossibly tiny values.

There is just sooooo much room for alternative explanations that its not even funny.

 

That's just not true, no matter how many times you say it, results and data are not the same thing as interpretations.

The thing about time periods is that you can accumulate them OVER TIME, and even then the periods of time are not impossibly tiny and the atomic particles may be invisible but they still give up information (such as the passage of time). 

 

The speed is measured not calculated, the time is measured not calculated or interpreted, those time differences have real world consequences, that is why GPS clocks have to be corrected for General and Special relativity effects. If you do not correct for that, the GPS system would simply not work.

 

If you designed the GPS system using Newtonian dynamics, there would be a multi-million dollar waste of money in space that does not work!

 

Sure, so give us some alternatives? Also, why do you need an alternative? 

 

 

No, no we don’t know any such thing.  Relativists ASSUME they understand, and choose to interpret all observations through Einstein coloured glasses, literally forcing all results to conform to their pre set minds.

You ASSUME that there must be massive objects that you can’t see… WHY? Because you assume that some visible objects are solid matter, are a certain distance away, are a certain size, and thus are moving at a certain speed. Then you ASSUME that you KNOW their Mass, and you ASSUME that Mass is definitely in a fixed relationship with gravity, so from there, you calculate that there should be something massive nearby, but you cant see it.

 

No, we do know such thing, we have observed massive objects (like Stars) orbiting what we see as empty space, astronomers observe that, that is not a theory, that is not a guess from Relativists, it's just an observation.

We observe objects orbiting around apparently nothing, we know from 'science' that things orbit massive objects, the earth orbits the sun, we see things orbiting something we cannot see.

 

All we assume then is that the things we see orbiting are orbiting a mass, but we do not see that object with that mass, but we can guess the mass of the objects orbiting it, and their distance from it, so we can derive the mass and position of the object we cannot see.

 

The MNO (or the black hole). But all we can really say about it (if we are honest) is that it is a Massive Non-luminous Object.

 

But sure, if you start talking about event horizons, or singularities or curved onto itself spacetime, and time stopping... then that is pure guess and speculation.. (click bait).

 

 

 

I would have thought that a real cosmologist would see the weird action, realize that his assumptions about distance, speed, gravity, mass do not account for the motion observed, so rather than hanging on like grim death to his previous ASSUMPTIONS, a real scientist should simply say, Well, WE DON’T KNOW, but clearly there is NO MASSIVE OBJECT THERE, no black holes, worm hole, or parallel universe.  

 

The Astronomer, does not observe weird action, he sees objects in orbits, he/she sees that all the time, that is not at all weird, hell he sees the earth orbit the sun, the moon orbit the earth.. 

 

He does not make assumptions about distance, speed, gravity or mass, he/she makes observations and measurements, there are assumptions made but even so, that does not change the fact that massive (big) objects are orbiting around something they cannot see. That means the thing they cannot see needs to have LOTS of mass, (you need lots of mass to have full on suns orbiting you). 

 

So a real scientist would say "This is just like what I see all the time, except I cannot actually see the object being orbited"

 

So a real scientist would say "This is a massive non-luminous Object" it has mass because I see things orbiting it, it is non-luminous because I see no light coming from it. 

 

Not only that, but astronomers believe they have also seen an MNO (black hole) being born, or created. 

 

We know then for a fact (as true as water is wet) that there are very massive objects in space, that things orbit around (even entire galaxies), that do not themselves emit light (at least visible light) that we can detect.  You can agree that event horizons and singularaties may not exist, but its a fact that massive non-luminous objects certainly do exist, because we see the effect they have on objects around it.

 

You can't see the wind, but you can see the branches of the trees moving and things flying through the air and you can make a reasonable deduction (or is that induction?), that the wind is blowing. 

 

 

 

But the quack Einstein scientist is not content to rest there, announcing that invisible things exist, (black holes) but going on to announce that because of all his prior ASSUMPTIONS, 93 % of the whole fu#king universe is MISSING, so Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is the ONLY solution.

 

Invisible things do exist, most if not all of nature is made up of things we cannot see or possibly see!

We cannot see many things directly, that does not mean they do not exist, also that does not mean we have no way of detecting their existence.

 

You can't see electricity, voltage or current, you can't see the wind, you can't see the hot or cold, you can't even see light (unless it interacts with matter).

 

Just because you can't see something does not mean it does not exist, the moon is still there even if no one is looking at it. (a relativity/quantum mechanics joke).

 

As for dark matter and dark energy, yes I think that is junk science as well, but Einstein had NOTHING to do with dark matter or dark energy, (or even the big bang, his calculations shows a static, eternal universe. 

 

Dark matter is a great argument against modern cosmology, and the LCDM model, but that's not Einstein's thing. Don't blame him for that.

 

 

 

Well, as you have already discarded Quantum Physics and half of Cosmology, along with the whole reason why Einstein developed his Math for spacetime, you are now officially a Quack, and a Crank and cant be trusted about anything. 

 

You are very angry, but I understand that a lot of cosmology has gone off the rails, with crazy idea's and even crazier models with dial in dark matter, energy, flow, variable light speed, variable expansion, big bang garbage. 

I would put it as more than half of Cosmology, I would go as far as saying that Big Bang Cosmology is WRONG, that there was no big bang and trying to justify every observation in the context of explaining the Big Bang is fundamentally flawed, if no big bang occurred.

 

I think big bang cosmology is a case study in scientific confirmation bias, that is the reason why cosmology is in deep crisis, and also why people like yourself are so angry. (you have every right to be angry as well). 

 

How much time and effort and money has be waisted in the past 50 to 100 years trying to squeeze a big bang model into all those years of observations?

Why has cosmology fundamentally abandoned the scientific method? 

 

Quantum Mechanics fairs no better either, it's a one trick pony, it was able to model the rotation of an electron in a magnetic field... THE END!!

That is it!!! ONE THING. 

 

For the past 50 years quantum mechanics has been trying to crack THE PROTON!!! WOW, and they can't work it out! So yes, I discard quantum physics, and most if not all of big bang cosmology.

 

However, in regards to relativity, as far as I am concerned, space has a relative property, we know that to be a FACT, we measure that, it is real. 

(again, I do not agree with the geometrical treatment of relativity, or that it is curved or warped, for me that curve is flat, but relativity is correct).

 

Science is not about trusting a person, or a name (even if it is Einstein) science is about facts, information and logic and reasoning to try to understand and explain simply what we observe about nature. 

 

You can get angry at people but that does not help you in any way, you have to evaluate the evidence you then draw your own conclusions or accept others conclusions as to the explanation as to why we observe what we do.

 

You anger directed to me is misplace anger, it does not help anything.

 

 

 

So there is no way you can still possibly KNOW that Relativity is right, when you discard the hypothesis that created it. Did Einstein just accidently invent the equations by sheer random scribble of his blackboard?

 

I do know that relativity is right, because I know for a fact that clocks tick at different rates at different places, and also from velocity, we measure that, we also see things like Shapiro delay (we measure it), and gravitation lensing, and gravitational shifting of light.

 

This are all effects that show that time and space is relative, I ACCEPT the hypothesis that space and time are RELATIVE, we measure that, we have to take that into account in engineering, it is a fact.

 

However, you confusion is in that I do not agree that the 3D geometrical analysis is the correct minimal analysis method, the only thing I differ about is that instead of curved space, I consider space as just longer, so the length difference is not from curved space but just longer (flat) space.

 

Stretched space as opposed to curved space: That's the only difference, relativity is still correct, space is relative, I just thing 3D space plus time is a bit of a nod to Newtonian dynamics, with forces and directions. Relativity is correct. (but can be analyzed in a simpler and more intuitive way, that for me explains how gravity works in a far more clear way. But space and time ARE RELATIVE. (regardless of any theory explaining it).

 

 

Therefore the relativity you speak of here cannot be Einstein’s relativity but Galileo’s relativity, which alone is observer independent.

 

Einstein’s relativity claims that Physics remains the same in all inertial frames, but then immediately destroys that claim by saying that Time, Length and Mass DO NOT remain the same in the very same inertial frames. But change according to a remote observer.

 

You are somewhat confusing yourself and getting lost in terminology, physics does not change, the laws of physics are the same everywhere, but the properties of things (or space itself) can change. (but that does not mean physics changes). 

 

That idea that you can only see these effects as a 'remote observer' is because relativity means that the properties of space and time (it's length) are different in different locations. To see relative effects you need to look at places with a relative difference, (ie, not  in your own reference frame). But observed or not the difference is still there.

 

 

Science is now not even trying anymore to explain what we observe, which was the original science, the “Natural Sciences”.

These days, (since the late 1800’s)  explaining Observations has been relegated to the trash bin, to be replaced by Mathematicians deciding what exists, then going out and trying to force any experiment, whoever fantastic)  to find some tiny measure of support for the math discovery, and that’s sufficient for a Nobel Prize.

 

I pretty much agree with you on this one, math and 'models', accepting as 'ok' infinities, and being allowed to apply 'correction factors' like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and 'magic', and lots of 'mathtabation'. Sabine Hossenfelder has written a good book on 'the math problem' where 'pretty math' is taking over for real, valid and evidence based science. 

 

That if you can make nice looking equations, that describe something, simply by virtue of the mathematical beauty if MUST be correct. (it's often not correct). So yes, I am with you on that one. (so life long buddies now??? )

 

 

 

Several times now the Nobel prize for Physics has gone to just simple minded Mathematicians.

 

Yes, that is true. You won't get an argument from me on that one.. see above.

 

 

The biggest LIE of Science is the claim that is not just big business, and also that Math is the all important gold standard.

 

Math is critical for one thing,  Mathematics.

 

True, again, see above. 

 

But yes, science IS BIG BUSINESS, and it is loaded with dogma, and it is also very math centric, 

 

Things like CERN have been a huge disappointment, and expense. The LHC was supposed to explain all sorts of things and confirm once and for all, all manner of pretty mathematical models. BUT NO, we got this Higgs from CERN, and we expected that, but apart from that NOTHING came from the huge cost of the LHC. 

 

It's huge business, and very dependent on models and mathematical beauty, which have turned out to be a poor foundation to start on.. 

 

Math is a good language to describe things, but it's a language, it can describe garbage just as well as it can describe reality. Like any language. 

 

 

Physics can live without it.

Physics is supposed to EXPLAIN WHAT and HOW things do what we OBSERVE them doing.  WHAT and HOW explanations don't need Math.

 

You need a language to explain things, but you are right that math alone is not a complete language, everything about nature should be able to be described and explain in simple, practical language. 'this does that because this does that and the other thing'. 

Rocks fall because space is longer 'down' and shorter 'up', down is a lower energy state, and any velocity is a higher velocity in longer space, applying what looks like a pulling and pushing force from shorter space into longer space, making the object accelerate, in the direction of 'down'.

 

If you are going at 10 meters per second, into space where the length of 1 meter is longer (down), then you will appear to go faster (accelerate), but you will feel no acceleration because you are still only going at 10 meters per second.

 

The voltage drop across a resistor, is proportional to the current through the resistor and the value of resistance of the resistor. V=IR. 

 

But if I put zero ohms across 1 volt I will get infinite current, does that mean that Ohms law is wrong? No, it means how the math is applied is wrong. 

 

If I put matter into zero volume I get infinite mass density, time stopped and a singularity, is that correct or just math badly applied under incorrect (not possible) conditions.

 

 

This is basic truth but has been lost from Science.

But at least you admitted that I got a few things right.

 

I agree with you on many points, there is good reason for annoyance and anger about science especially cosmology, and theoretical physics for many of the reasons you laid out.

 

But I will always stick to what WE DO KNOW, and try to get to a place that makes what we do know to be true to make sense. 

 

We know clocks tick at different rates (identical clocks), we know the speed of light is constant, we know stars orbit things that we cannot see. (that we can only 'see' because stars orbit them).

We know Einstein shift is real, we know Shapiro Delay is real. So we have to accept them as facts, they are fundamental principles. 

 

Some relative property of space itself does explain those things, the things we now routinely observe. Some say that relative property is space curvature and a different 'path' through space, and other (well probably only me) think that it is not curved, and the extra path length is just LONGER space (flat, not curved, but stretched). 

 

The end result is the same even if the way to get there is conceptionally different, but all the observations and evidence supports a flat stretched space as opposed to a curved or warped space. But either way, the effects of that difference is relative and its real. 

 

I hope you are less angry, and more willing to follow the science and attack the science (that is what science does), but not the scientists. 

Einstein and Newton are just normal people with normal (within bell curve) intelligence, they are not gods, their words are not final, they in fact don't carry any more weight than anyone else. (well maybe a bit more!!).. 

 

Have a good day/night buddy.. 



#46 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Today, 06:26 PM

I'm very angry.  I'm very angry that a tiny group of Globalists that believe they are the "Elite chosen ones", with a god given right to rule over all this World, are actually now doing just that!

The make the rules that suit only themselves, and now I can even get on a plane and go to a different part of my own country unless I submit to their demands.

Soon I wont be able to go into a shop to buy food or earn money unless I let them inject me with some chemical concoction that is supposed to be a cure for the common cold. I will need an 
"immunity passport" for a common cold or seasonal flu.

 

In actual fact, any vaccine for covid will probably just be a placebo, to train people to submit to mandatory medication, but later the injections will become lethal, probably by destroying the bodies immune system, thus allowing the next intentionally released Lab bio weapon to kill a good percentage of this earths population. This is their PUBLISHED PLAN, reduce drastically the population.

 

But my attitude towards science is partly affected by that anger.

However, when people are so blind that they still cant see that EVERY aspect of modern life has been poisoned by the globalists, the international bankers, the "rootless clique" that Hitler warned about, then I cant sit by and not tell such people that they have been sold a big lie.

 

And Education is one of the most useful tools that the globalists have to infect the Goy, with misinformation and deceitful claims.  Keeping the population dumbed down is a good strategy to help subdue any nation.

 

And Einstein's Relativity is right up there on top of the list of deceitful claims of so called approved science.

You have already figured out that Quantum and most of Cosmology is problematic, but despite the fact that you don't agree with the main tenants of Einsteins GR, (curvature of spacetime) you STILL accept the conclusions?

That's weird, and an indication to me that you are just not quite digging deep enough.

 

Now tell me, as Space is simply the "places between physical objects (planets ans such) where there is no other materials or matter,  (empty Space, the void, the vacuum of Space etc) then how exactly can it posses any PROPERTIES?  Properties are ONLY the features of Physical MATTER, of material, of substance.

 

Heat is a Property. You cant have any heat unless you have physical matter that can possess that heat energy.

 

Same with the illumination that light affords.  There exists NO Light or illumination until there is some substance or objects to receive that illumination.

In space, there is only blackness, UNLESS you have a physical object, then you can experience that property of illumination as light. (this my own idea) 

 

So as Space is the absence of Matter, how can you compress or stretch that which is not existing?

 And you skipped my statement that Einsteins concluded that LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT.

 

"We know clocks tick at different rates (identical clocks), we know the speed of light is constant, we know stars orbit things that we cannot see. (that we can only 'see' because stars orbit them).

We know Einstein shift is real, we know Shapiro Delay is real. So we have to accept them as facts, they are fundamental principles. "

 

No, you are quite wrong with these claims. We don't "Know" any of this stuff.

You are believing fraudulent pseudo scientists.

 

You actually believe that the LIGO interferometer for example,  has measured imaginary gravity waves? Really? 

 

No warning bells are sounding in your head?

 

Clocks ticking is NOT the same as the claim that TIME is changing. Get the difference?

 

Light is NOT a CONSTANT.

 

We DONT KNOW that Stars are orbiting things we cant see.  They are apparently moving in a seemingly tight circular motion, but to jump to the assumption that there MUST exist a very massive object in the center, is speculation. We cant see it because IT DOES NOT EXIST.  This speculation of invisible yet ultra massive objects is all driven by the INSISTENCE that we have fully understood Gravity. That we are certain that all motion is due only to gravitational forces.

 

What if there is Gravity, but it has little of nothing to do with the orbits of planets?

If our calculations dictate that there MUST be a super massive object that is totally invisible, undetectable, then Occam's Razor would suggest that its more likely that our calculations about Gravity are simply WRONG.

 

I'm going with Occam here.

 

The explanation of Shapiro's "Time warping" is nonsense.  Sure physical environments do affect physical processes. So as we KNOW that light is NOT a constant, then signals passing through different physical regions with different physical properties must affect the signals. (Just as Light slows when entering different materials with different refractive indexes, but Time is not changing is it?) 

 

But there is no way to jump to the conclusion that TIME, (a CONCEPT ONLY) can be affected.  Concepts are not Physical entities, so cant be affected by Physical conditions. 

 

And Einstein's shift, is another leap of pure FAITH.   Red and Blue Shift of Light is actually destroying Einsteins claims, not supporting them.

Doppler shift of sound, and of Light is PROVING that we always measure the speed of sound and of Light as Sound +/- our own speed, or Light +/- our own speed. That's what Doppler is.

That's how the Police can measure your speed with Light radar guns, because wavelength changes is directly due to speed measurement differential between the observer and the waves.

The Wave length always remains the same, but as the observer or target is moving toward or away from those stable waves, he encounters each wave quicker or slower, which SEEMS LIKE the wave length has changed.  It has not.  The whole of Einstein's theory is based on "SEEMS LIKE" and "appears to the observer" or "from the observers point of view",  these are subjective experiential observations, and as such are not applicable to the necessarily Objective requirements of Science.

Einsteins claims require the ignorance of one of the Observers to create a non existing conflict, thus requiring his pseudo scientific solution of Time dilation and length contraction.

He first creates a non existing fake "problem" then steps in with a "solution" that just happens to require the overturning of all of known Physics.

 

The result is an endless succession of Paradoxes and Black Holes.

 

The creation of a faked problem and the provision of the solution, is a Elitists trick called the Hegelian dialectic, or "Problem, Reaction, Solution."

Create a real or faked catastrophic event, feed fear into the population through the Media, and then finally step in with a pre planned "final solution" to take away the problem.

Covid is the latest such trick. 

 

 

You believe a flat out lie, and a deception as the solution.

Science is big business, its designed to create an elite class of celebrity Hollywood style "scientists" (you know them) who normal people dare not question.

These scientists and their Orwellian Institutions (Universities) are the final word, (the "final solution" is probably applicable ) and are used by Rulers to squash any dissent.

(911 building just fell down, (not demolished) because NIST and our scientists said so) 

Covid requires the destruction of the USA economy because our unquestionable Expert Faucci said so.  But fortunately our "friends in Israel have the "final solution" a global one world digital currency.

 

Science University Education creates a lifetime of debt slavery for student to repay their education loans or better, to pay for their own brain washing. 

 

Millions of Graduates, no Jobs for almost all of them. 

 

Time for war is the usual next step. Lets get the sheep here to fight the sheep in china, cull out a few million of them.....

And who ALWAYS benefits from every war?  Well the Globalist Elites of course, the same guys that own your Universities, and dictate the curriculum. 

What's next on their education agenda is not just the acceptance of Gay rights, and BLM but the mandatory experiments to see if you can get to enjoy a Gay experience, and the forced interracial unions to get all White girls pregnant to black men. 

 

The objective is the genocide of all white races.

 

But Jews of course must remain pure, as they are the Racially superior "master Race" right? Jew girls are legally only allowed to marry Jews.  All non Jews to be forced out of Israel. The exact opposite of the Jewish push for race mixing and massive migration into all White Nations.  

At some point you got to WAKE UP!

 

 

How can one not be fu$king ANGRY AS HELL?

 

If you are not angry yet, you are already dead. (as good as) 


Edited by marcospolo, Today, 07:19 PM.


#47 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2790 posts

Posted Today, 06:53 PM

I'm very angry.  I'm very angry that a tiny group of Globalists that believe they are the "Elite chosen ones", with a god given right to rule over all this World, are actually now doing just that!

The make the rules that suit only themselves, and now I can even get on a plane and go to a different part of my own country unless I submit to their demands.

Soon I wont be able to go into a shop to buy food or earn money unless I let them inject me with some chemical concoction that is supposed to be a cure for the common cold. I will need an 
"immunity passport" for a common cold or seasonal flu.

 

In actual fact, any vaccine for covid will probably just be a placebo, to train people to submit to mandatory medication, but later the injections will become lethal, probably by destroying the bodies immune system, thus allowing the next intentionally released Lab bio weapon to kill a good percentage of this earths population.

 

But my attitude towards science is partly affected by that anger.

However, when people are so blind that they still cant see that EVERY aspect of modern life has been poisoned by the globalists, the international bankers, the "rootless clique" that Hitler warned about, then I cant sit by and not tell such people that they have been sold a big lie.

 

And Education is one of the most useful tools that the globalists have to infect the Goy, with misinformation and deceitful claims.  Keeping the population dumbed down is a good strategy to help subdue any nation.

 

And Einstein's Relativity is right up there on top of the list of deceitful claims of so called approved science.

You have already figured out that Quantum and most of Cosmology is problematic, but despite the fact that you don't agree with the main tenants of Einsteins GR, (curvature of spacetime) you STILL accept the conclusions?

That's weird, and an indication to me that you are just not quite digging deep enough.

 

Now tell me, as Space is simply the "places between physical objects (planets ans such) where there is no other materials or matter,  (empty Space, the void, the vaccuum of Space etc) then how exactly can it posses any PROPERTIES?  Properties are ONLY the features of Physical MATTER, of material, of substance.

 

Heat is a Property. You cant have any heat unless you have physical matter that can possess that heat energy.

 

Same with the illumination that light affords.  There exists NO Light or illumination until there is some substance or objects to receive that illumination.

In space, there is only blackness, UNLESS you have a physical object, then you can experience that property of illumination as light. (this my own idea) 

 

So as Space is the absence of Matter, how can you compress or stretch that which is not existing?

 And you skipped my statement that Einsteins concluded that LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT.

 

"We know clocks tick at different rates (identical clocks), we know the speed of light is constant, we know stars orbit things that we cannot see. (that we can only 'see' because stars orbit them).

We know Einstein shift is real, we know Shapiro Delay is real. So we have to accept them as facts, they are fundamental principles. "

 

No, you are quite wrong with these claims. We don't "Know" any of this stuff.

You are believing fraudulent pseudo scientists.

 

You actually believe that the LIGO interferometer for example,  has measured imaginary gravity waves? Really? 

 

No warning bells are sounding in your head?

 

Clocks ticking is NOT the same as the claim that TIME is changing. Get the difference?

 

Light is NOT a CONSTANT.

 

We DONT KNOW that Stars are orbiting things we cant see.  They are apparently moving in a seemingly tight circular motion, but to jump to the assumption that there MUST exist a very massive object in the center, is speculation. We cant see it because IT DOES NOT EXIST.  This speculation of invisible yet ultra massive objects is all driven by the INSISTENCE that we have fully understood Gravity. That we are certain that all motion is due only to gravitational forces.

 

What is there is Gravity, but it has little of nothing to do with the orbits of planets?

If our calculations dictate that there MUST be a super massive object that is totally invisible, undetectable, then Occam's Razor would suggest that its more likely that our calculations about Gravity are simply WRONG.

 

I'm going with Occam here.

 

The explanation of Shapiro's "Time warping" is nonsense.  Sure physical environments do affect physical processes. So as we KNOW that light is NOT a constant, then signals passing through different physical regions with different physical properties must affect the signals. (Just as Light slows when entering different materials with different refractive indexes, but Time is not changing is it?) 

 

But there is no way to jump to the conclusion that TIME, (a CONCEPT ONLY) can be affected.  Concepts are not Physical entities, so cant be affected by Physical conditions. 

 

And Einstein's shift, is another leap of pure FAITH.   Red and Blue Shift of Light is actually destroying Einsteins claims, not supporting them.

Doppler shift of sound, and of Light is PROVING that we always measure the speed of sound and of Light as Sound +/- our own speed, or Light +/- our own speed. That's what Doppler is.

That's how the Police can measure your speed with Light radar guns, because wavelength changes is directly due to speed measurement differential between the observer and the waves.

The Wave length always remains the same, but as the observer or target is moving tor=ward or away from those stable waves, he encounters each wave quicker or slower, which SEEMS LIKE the wave length has changed.  It has not.  The whole of Einstein's theory is based on "SEEMS LIKE" and "appears to the observer" or "from the observers point of view",  these are subjective experiential observations, and as such are not applicable to the necessarily Objective requirements of Science.

Einsteins claims require the ignorance of one of the Observers to create a non existing conflict, thus requiring his pseudo scientific solution of Time dilation and length contraction.

He first creates a non existing fake "problem" then steps in with a "solution" that just happens to require the overturning of all of known Physics.

 

The result is an endless succession of Paradoxes and Black Holes.

 

You believe a flat out lie, and a deception as the solution.

Science is big business, its designed to create an elite class of celebrity Hollywood style "scientists" (you know them) who normal people dare not question.

These scientists and their Orwellian Institutions (Universities) are the final word, (the "final solution" is probably applicable ) and are used by Rulers to squash any dissent.

(911 building just fell down, (not demolished) because NIST and our scientists said so) 

Covid requires the destruction of the USA economy because our unquestionable Expert Faucci said so.  But fortunately our "friends in Israel have the "final solution" a global one world digital currency.

 

Science University Education creates a lifetime of debt slavery for student to repay their education loans or better, to pay for their own brain washing. 

 

Millions of Graduates, no Jobs for almost all of them. 

 

Time for war is the usual next step. Lets get the sheep here to fight the sheep in china, cull out a few million of them.....

And who ALWAYS benefits from every war?  Well the Globalist Elites of course, the same guys that own your Universities, and dictate the curriculum. 

What's next on their education agenda is not just the acceptance of Gay rights, and BLM but the mandatory experiments to see if you can get to enjoy a Gay experience, and the forced interracial unions to get all White girls pregnant to black men. 

 

The objective is the genocide of all white races.

 

But Jews of course must remain pure, as they are the Racially superior "master Race" right? Jew girls are legally only allowed to marry Jews.  All non Jews to be forced out of Israel. The exact opposite of the Jewish push for race mixing and massive migration into all White Nations.  

At some point you got to WAKE UP!

 

 

How can one not be fu$king ANGRY AS HELL?

 

If you are not angry yet, you are already dead. (as good as) 

TL;DR 

 

So basically you think that mainstream science is wrong and that Einstein is wrong with a weird paranoia that mainstream science is out to get ya.


Edited by VictorMedvil, Today, 06:56 PM.


#48 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Today, 06:57 PM

TL;DR 

 

So basically you think that mainstream science is wrong and that Einstein is wrong.

Were did you get that idea?

 

I don't think that ALL information, (knowledge) available from a University, or elsewhere, is wrong. 

 

Just the WRONG stuff is wrong.

 

Which includes all of Einstein's work. ALL of it.

 

If you have another opinion, and can point out which of my statements is demonstrable wrong, then please let us all know.

I've spelled out in my last post, the WHO, WHY, HOW and WHAT is going on, and its rather complete.

 

Does it match what we observe?  Yes, quite clearly it does.

 

Science is not isolated from the rest of Human existence. To pretend that it alone has remained pure and undefiled is a dangerous delusion.



#49 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted Today, 08:56 PM

 

 

Just the WRONG stuff is wrong.

 

Oh, thank goodness for that, crisis averted!

 

So now I get it, it's not that you are anti-science or actually believe that anything is wrong, it's just that you are a conspiracy theorist, and everyone is out to get you 'somehow'. As if you are of any importance or significance to 'THEM'.. (or is it 'THEY')

 

What is it about the US, that makes so many of its people this conspiratorial? It has to be related to the education system (or lack of it). 

 

The rich and the educated don't sit around all day trying to work out how to control your mind or to make you slaves by injecting you with drugs or microchips.

 

THEY ALREADY do that, it's called advertising, and they ALREADY ARE RICH and powerful. 

 

As I said in my earlier posts, yes, science has its problems and in some areas I think it does very poorly, BUT when it comes to the actual application of science (that is in engineering) the science HAS to be right, when you need the science to actually make something work, that science is correct.

 

Engineers need relativity to be correct, because relativity is correct engineers can design and build things like the GPS navigation system that works because Relativity is right. 

 

These people in science, and universities and in engineering are not super intelligent, they are not your overlords, just normal people (just like you). 

 

You have not worked out yet that Governments are also not super powerful, always evil entities who are in complete control.

They often cant even organize clean, fresh water in the US, do you honestly think they could get organised enough to inject you with a microchip or whatever else you think.

 

You are just not that important, it must be horrible to live your life thinking that everyone is WAY smarter than you, and that they are all trying to GET YOU, or even that you are significant enough to even bother trying. 

The US education system, it's not good!



#50 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted Today, 11:08 PM

Oh, thank goodness for that, crisis averted!

 

So now I get it, it's not that you are anti-science or actually believe that anything is wrong, it's just that you are a conspiracy theorist, and everyone is out to get you 'somehow'. As if you are of any importance or significance to 'THEM'.. (or is it 'THEY')

 

What is it about the US, that makes so many of its people this conspiratorial? It has to be related to the education system (or lack of it). 

 

The rich and the educated don't sit around all day trying to work out how to control your mind or to make you slaves by injecting you with drugs or microchips.

 

THEY ALREADY do that, it's called advertising, and they ALREADY ARE RICH and powerful. 

 

As I said in my earlier posts, yes, science has its problems and in some areas I think it does very poorly, BUT when it comes to the actual application of science (that is in engineering) the science HAS to be right, when you need the science to actually make something work, that science is correct.

 

Engineers need relativity to be correct, because relativity is correct engineers can design and build things like the GPS navigation system that works because Relativity is right. 

 

These people in science, and universities and in engineering are not super intelligent, they are not your overlords, just normal people (just like you). 

 

You have not worked out yet that Governments are also not super powerful, always evil entities who are in complete control.

They often cant even organize clean, fresh water in the US, do you honestly think they could get organised enough to inject you with a microchip or whatever else you think.

 

You are just not that important, it must be horrible to live your life thinking that everyone is WAY smarter than you, and that they are all trying to GET YOU, or even that you are significant enough to even bother trying. 

The US education system, it's not good!

You are an idiot.

There is nothing "theoretical" about the current state of affairs.

Anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies deserves to become the next victim of one.

 

Nobody is out to get "me", they just want all white nations destroyed. This is seen if you care to look at all the white nations today.

The elites openly discuss how to make this happen, and proudly brag that by 2030 there will be no more whites.

 

If you can't see this is whats happening then you are just an idiot.

 

So now that you have identified me as a "theorist" you are going to dismiss everything I said about science too.

Very easy solution that is.

 

Sorry  but your stupidity is showing.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: electromagnetism, electric current, electricity, Faradays law, physics