Jump to content
Science Forums

marcospolo

Members
  • Content Count

    811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

marcospolo last won the day on April 8

marcospolo had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About marcospolo

  • Rank
    Explaining
  • Birthday 09/09/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    What lies behind the lies of modern Physics.

Recent Profile Visitors

466 profile views
  1. Sluggo, this comment is a very weak attempt, actually no attempt at all, ZERO effort on you behalf to counter the videos Math claims. You think that your simple statement that "the video conveys nothing" counts as suitable response to a detailed explanation of a Mathematical error? You think that you "poo Pooing" the video would get you far in any debate involving pure math? Sorry, but your pathetic response can only mean that you do not have any counter to the authors claims in his detailed video. Clearly you have only verbal personal attacks remaining to offer which always lose ag
  2. But YOU or your university or some specific group called "the scientific community" DO NOT OWN "science". nor are you the god ordained custodians of all knowledge, or the "scientific police". You are not the Judge, Jury and executioner of thoughts of scientific inquiry. And the "scientific method" is an illusion. Its purpose is not to promote the discovery of knowledge, but to contain it, filter it, and manage it. Lots of discoveries are made, of course, but like-wise lots of critical reviews of questionable "science" are demolished by this cult like overlord gang that shoot down any di
  3. How on earth do these "physicists" justify TWO versions of the one property of an Object? Really? my car has a Mass or 1 tonne when in the garage (resting) but once ii push it down the road, it GAINS MASS? No, there is only ONE definition for the Mass property, and "velocity" has ZERO effect on it, and momentum is an entirely different measured property. The only thing in a kinetic sense that changes is the Momentum measurement, which is 100% due to the velocity. p=mv, and that's where the story ends. "Rest vs inertial" is irrational unscientific nonsense. There i
  4. Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam. Here is the intro.
  5. Me too, but I found that anyone can read what Einsteins is claiming, its not at all complex to follow his concepts. He makes it seem complex by using irrationally applied maths based on bizarre equations that don't relate to actual reality in any way. If something seems really weird, and against your intuition, there is a strong possibility that you should lean toward your intuition. This is not always going to be correct, like when you observe a gyroscope, its hardly intuitive, or a magnet attracting a steel ball. Not intuitive, nor is gravity, we just take these things for granted.
  6. Yes, but I fear that you are getting two OPPOSITE theories that use the same word, mixed up together! There is classical Relative motion, theory ONE. Then the second theory, totally at odds with the first, is Einsteins Special Relative motion. Theory one, has been around since ancient times, but Einsteins is since 1905. Theory one, the classical relativity includes a full explanation of Doppler. Theory one is correct and demonstrable, theory two is irrational nonsense. Unable to even be explained by rationally and logically. So relativity is normal, and correct,
  7. Nonsense. A number of critics (over the last 100 years) of Einsteins Special Relativity have presented papers that use experimental evidence to demonstrate that SR is incorrect, and they use circular motion. Without exception, these proposals never got past stage one, and were tossed out because they were not inertial motion. Now when it suits you, you are pronouncing that circle is close enough to straight line. Also you are discarding ALL of the conditions that Einstein set out for SR, namely, Inertial straight line motion, neither accelerating or decelerating, and no where near any gr
  8. Its not an example of SR if it is already an example of classical Physics, the two are opposite claims. "C" is not impossible, its the assumed finite limit of the speed of light in a vacuum. Assumed because its impossible to verify in a one way experiment. What I said is that its impossible to have an observer who is traveling alongside a photon, at 90% of the speed of the Photon, yet somehow still measure that photons speed as c. This is supposed to be true even if the observer is doing 90% c in the opposite direction. This cannot be demonstrated, its flies in the face of all experi
  9. If they are actual Physicists, and not high school students, every observer will use his instruments along with his knowledge of Physics to come up with the true pitch of the whistle. All 3 will have the same correct answer, each applying the laws of Physics to his measured result, and compensating if necessary. Einsteins does not allow this type of intelligent application of the laws of Physics in his SR hypothesis. The observer on the ship must remain a high school observer, ignorant of his condition, but the stationary observer does have all the necessary information. They are each wor
  10. Einsteins whole hypothesis is based totally on fooling you over relative motion, and what it is supposed to mean. Explain how a finite easily measurable speed of a photon, could still possible be measured at the same speed, even if you are flying alongside it at 99% light speed. Of lets just say 100% light speed, to make it easy. According to Einstein and every Physicist ever, "the Laws of Kinematics apply in ALL inertial frames of Reference", so, those laws dictate that the observer doing 100% c will measure light velocity as identical to himself, i.e, light is motionless relative t
  11. Which part of this diagram shows any inertial frames of reference? Which part of an airplane flight is inertial? None are, so any math used to calculate imaginary time dilation would need to NOT simple be the math of Lorentz which is ONLY valid for pure inertial frames. Yet that's what they used, the wrong equations. In this diagram, which of the clocks on planes G and E would lose time and which would gain time? They both would experience time dilation, none could possibly experience negative time dilation, yet that's what they claimed. Clearly they were lying and making s
  12. The claim of Einstein that because the man in a upward accelerating box of suitable acceleration, FEELS the same force as one that is on the Earth under gravity, is not rational grounds to claim that one is equivalent to the other. Gravity is NOT the same as Acceleration caused by motion, but in special cases the force experienced can seem the same. You don't think that an experiment can be done to determine if you are in one situation or another? Well its not hard to do, so bang goes Einsteins equivalence principal. Different Physics Laws are applicable for boxes under acceleration
  13. Either way, Einstein is wrong. Its interesting that with sound, the speed in air at sea level is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source. But the wave crests arrive with more frequently than they were generated if the source is moving towards an observer. Increasing the pitch but not the speed of each wave front. But to an observer moving towards the sound, he will measure the sound wave closing velocity as the speed of sound + his own velocity, and also having an increased pitch.
  14. therefore the guy in the box who knows that the light SHOULD have struck the opposite wall directly opposite to the hole, instead sees the light striking some distance down the wall, can only come to the conclusion that his box is moving upwards at a constant velocity. So contrary to Einsteins claim, a man in a box CAN do an experiment to show the difference between an upward moving inertial box, or a box on the surface of a planet under gravity. Also, he can devise another experiment to tell the different between weightlessness in deep space, compared to free-fall in a gravity field. E
×
×
  • Create New...