Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from Thoth101 in Covid-19 / Coronavirus - How Our Body And Vaccines Fight It?   
    But you are not allowed to mention the actual causes of the worlds problems here, or anywhere.  The guys with the little skull caps, and the lamp stand and star. You know, the guys that have no power or control, but its a criminal offence to criticise them. They are the only people who have this protection.
  2. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from Thoth101 in Covid-19 / Coronavirus - How Our Body And Vaccines Fight It?   
    posts containing any actual TRUTHS, are censored by big brother.  Only approved narrative allowed here, nothing to see, move on.
  3. Like
    marcospolo reacted to Thoth101 in Covid-19 / Coronavirus - How Our Body And Vaccines Fight It?   
    You really can't be this naïve can you be? :lol:
    Edward Jenner, Cowpox, And Smallpox Vaccination ,in 1796 performed the world's first vaccination.
    Humans have been on Earth for atleast 200,000 years.
    Do the math Monty.
    Maybe you would be a better student of math.
  4. Like
    marcospolo reacted to Thoth101 in Covid-19 / Coronavirus - How Our Body And Vaccines Fight It?   
    Humans survived 1,000s if not millions of years without pharmaceutical vaccines. I just wanted to point that out.
  5. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from IamGroot255 in Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.   
    I thought that Idiocracy was a documentary brought back from the future?
    It's certainly a great shame and blight on humanity that a handful of people over 100 years ago were able to infect the minds of scientists even to this day.
    And the next generation is lapping up the stagnant waters at the university fountain of Knowledge, unsuspecting that its all deception. Either deception by mistake or perhaps by design, but the theories are certainly deceiving them.
  6. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from IamGroot255 in Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.   
    You lost in the first line, where you claimed that one physical entity can be two different things.  There is no such thing as a dog/cat. Neither is there a particle/wave combo.  Its either one or the other, it cant be both, and tcant be the one you wish it to be when it suits you. 
    Try explaining interference when the light is a particle. And the photo electric effect when light is a wave, instead of a particle.  You cant choose the one you like, and ignore the other. But of couse you can because relativity is magic! and with magic anything can happen.
    Actually, light cant be a particle of any sort, as a particle is a nonsense claim.  If you have something that has NO MASS, NO SIZE, then by definition you dont have ANYTHING, the thing you thought you had is nonexisting!
    And the double slit joke is nothging to do with Special or General Realtivity.
    Also a particle is a small piece of something solid, but a wave is an action of many particles. So light cant be a combo of many small particles and also what particles do.
    Taake your precious double slit experiment, you claim that ONE photon was fired at a time but interfrered with itslef!  But how can you fire ONE photon when you also claim that its a wave of particles?  If its already a wave, then there is MORE than one particle to allow a wave action. Then you will get a wave pattern, whicjh is what we see.
     No mystery here. You did NOT fire one particle in the first place!
  7. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from IamGroot255 in Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.   
    You are the one displaying the crank attitude here.
    I explain why your claims are incorrect, you reply by explaining nothing at all.
    Yet you are confident that you are correct.
    Seems that the only basis for your belief that I am a crank is that I dont believe what you believe.
    There is no physics behind your beliefs, or you would explain why Im wrong.
    Are Relativists incapable of using reason and logic?  Is that forbiden by the Einstein fan club?
    So what exactly are you referring to when you said, "this is why you a crank,"  (you have failed to provide any context)
    What exactly is not reasonable in my statements?
  8. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from IamGroot255 in Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.   
    You are incapable of clean thought. Not everyone is able to think outside his comfort zone. It's common. No need to feel ashamed.
    You seem to get confused between a "scientifically proven fact" and a "favoured INTERPRETATION"  of some observed evidence.
    Intepretations that themselves must be grounded in prior intepretations of other observtions, or sometimes not even on observations, but only on posturings.
    Wave particle duality is exactly such an intepretation.
    If you really feel that you are correct, then perhaps you should be methodical and start at my post #2.
    Work through that example and explain where its wrong.
    No need to jump to another topic of wave/particle theory.
    Incidentally there is no such thing as a "scientifically proven FACT".  Even your own Einstein fan club members agree that you can only PROVE a theory wrong, never prove it true.
  9. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong   
    Its yet another paradox in an endless series of paradoxes about Einsteins irrational ideas and conclusions.
    The explanation is simply that Einsteins is wrong, Special Relativity is a fantasy, and nothing weird goes on with objects that move, also any ad-hoc pretend "frame of reference" is likewise not going to cause any changes in Physical reality. Because they are imaginary constructs.
    You Relativists need to grow up and smell the roses, Einsteins is wrong, his theories are wrong, and there is a better, simpler and more elegant approach to  Physics (classical)  to study than Einstein's tripe.
    Classical Physics can and has explained Muons, Mercury, Starlight behind the Sun and GPS.  But you prefer to pretend that only weird nonsense of Einsteins is able to uncover or explain these things.
    Modern Physics is squarely based on the idea that the weirder and more mysterious the hypothesis, the more attractive it is to students.
    But as no one here cares for Scientific Honesty or Truth, please go on with your stupidity. Not everyone is buying it however.
  10. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in What Is Electric Current?   
    Yes, of course a 3d spiral will be displayed as a circle in 2d.  That's an Archimedes spiral in your image, with varying radius,  not a helical spiral with fixed radius, which does make concentric circles when viewed straight on. 
    And even if MitkoGorgiev was talking about a varying radius spiral, then STILL it can make a circular cross section. How you may ask?  Well, consider one object moving along a varying radius spiral.  A transverse slice of that objects path would make a single spot, not a whole varying radius spiral.  You can only get that full 2d varying radius spiral by transposing every position that the object passes through, in the entire journey, onto some imaginary background screen, hence creating that Archimedes spiral. But if there were millions of objects all moving along a series of varying radius spiral paths, and they were all at the same diameter at any one time, then a slice of that helix would create a ring of dots in a circular shape.  
    And how on earth can you post images here?  When I try, it just says I'm not allowed to post that type of image.. jpg, gif... ????
  11. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in Spacetime And Sr. Are Interesting But Unsupported Viewpoints.   
    This is the Strange claims forum, where we can discuss ideas that are :outside the bounds of real science: and can consist of unsupported irrational claims"
    Special Relativity, Spacetime, Minkowski, Expanding Universe, 13 billion year old universe, Evolution, General Relativity, Particle Physics, are all prime examples of weird unscientific claims, that are chock a block full of contradictory claims.
    To accept these ideas as if they could possibly be correct, would make one a "Reality Denier". (the worst type of Denier, according to the irrational claim that "to deny something" is some sort of crime anyway)
    This means that its correct to say that universities are teaching errors, not Physics.
    Its not hard to imagine this being possible.
    Yes, and even people who are supposed to be "brilliant" can be easily fooled by fantasy.
    Because all these concepts are just one big fantasy story, like Harry Potter stories.
    The real "crime" is to push bizarre, irrational  ideas with the power of trusted authority, claiming that "this is REAL Science, and anyone who disagrees is therefore a crank, because we say so, not because of any sensible hypothesis"
  12. Like
    marcospolo reacted to MitkoGorgiev in What Is Electric Current?   
    Consider these experiments:
    let us take two pieces of wire of equal thickness, but of different metals, which have a great difference in their resistivities – let's say, a copper wire and a kanthal wire. If we connect the two wires in series and position this “one” wire in north-south direction, under each piece we place a compass (the two compasses are identical) and then connect the ends to a battery, we will see that the deflections of the two needles are different. The needle under the copper wire deflects more than the needle under the kanthal wire.
    On the other hand, when we connect in series two pieces of kanthal wire of different cross sections and then place a compass under each one, we notice again that the needles make different deflections. Under the thinner piece we see a greater deflection than under the thicker one.
    The strength of the current is the same through both pieces since they are connected in series. But still, the deflections of the magnetic needles are not the same.
    This happens because the pitch of the magnetic spiral is not the same through all the wire pieces connected in series. 
    In the first variant of the experiment the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the copper piece.
    In the second variant the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the thinner kanthal piece.
    The magnetic spirals are not static. It is a magnetic current, just as the underwater spiral cavitation is a kind of current.
    I see that some people like mathematics very much. For them, here is the formula for the magnitude of the angle of the magnetic spiral:
    α = 90° (1-e^(-k*I/ρ*S))
    e - Euler's number
    k -  constant
    I - current strength
    ρ - resistivity of the metal
    S - cross sectional area of the wire piece
    When the current (I) is stronger, the angle (α) exponentially approaches to 90 degrees.
    P.S. Do you really believe that the iron filings circles is enough proof that the magnetic field of a current-carrying conductor is ideally at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line? Wouldn't you get the same circles also in the case of spiral-shaped field?
    The sheet of paper is two dimensional, isn't it?
  13. Like
    marcospolo reacted to MitkoGorgiev in What Is Electric Current?   
    Why do you comment on a topic which according to you is silly?
    I will tell you why. Because it is not silly at all, and something deeper inside you tells you that. But your biased mind is not able to comprehend that.
    The future will tell which theory is silly.
    P.S. I will answer you soon to your objection about the magnetic field.
  14. Like
  15. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?   
    This is exactly the response you always get from religious extremists. Which these guys are. I've run into their lack of logic and refusal to THINK critically, when discussing the massive errors on Einsteins theory of Relativity.
    They just refuse to respond to questions, and jump to personal insults as if that can fix the problems.
    The more I look into Physics, the more clashes of sound logic I find. There is a issue of reifying concepts, of pretending that metaphors are actual real objects or forces, and they skip over the hard questions.
  16. Like
    marcospolo reacted to MitkoGorgiev in Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?   
    Instead of trolling, why don't you try to answer my question about the picture from the German textbook? 
    What is it in the human nature, when one has no arguments, immediately to begin with insults? Are there psychologists in this forum to answer this question?
  17. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    I'm dubious, very skeptical of Rutherford's assumptions about what he imagined was inside an atom.
    Just more layers of smaller and smaller particles. All his ideas have been accepted as if there was no possible other options. Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, then down to quarks, etc.. particles all the way down.
    I'm very interested in what is behind the tracks and traces seen in a cloud chamber. The official explanation is sub atomic particles again.
    But the tracks involve massive particles of vapor, tracks are mm wide, and are caused by a sub atomic particle that is similar in size differential  of a drop of water striking the ocean and making a 50 mile wide wake?
    Same with those photo plates that are supposed to be recording the striking of a single Photon Yet the "spot" is billions of atoms in area.  (how big was a photon anyway? )
    So is it possible to come up with another non particle explanation for those cloud chamber tracks? 
  18. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in What Is Electric Current?   
    What you re saying makes more sense than tiny projectiles racing around hitting things.
  19. Like
    marcospolo reacted to MitkoGorgiev in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    In the case of CRT, I don't have a theory, but a true fact. And that is: the beam in any CRT is an electromagnetic vortex whose direction is from the positive to the negative electrode.
    By the way, mathematics proves nothing. Even if I give you a whole bunch of maths, at the end you'll say: OK, that's nice. Now show me something real. Show me how it functions in reality.
    What should I show you? Experiments, nothing else.
  20. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    That's one way of defining science. But its not necessarily correct.
    Math cant prove anything.
    Many completely opposing hypothesis all come with lots of equations and math, yet they all can't be correct. And maybe none are.
    So conclusion is that math in a hypothesis explaining how something works is not as important as they make out, Its a Kabbalistic, numerological invention of ancient mystical religions. Magic numbers...
  21. Like
    marcospolo reacted to MitkoGorgiev in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    Contrary to everything you have learned about the so called “cathode rays”, I assert something completely different about them.
    Please look at this drawing:

    This is a kind of cathode ray tube (CRT), also called Braun tube, which can be found in every CRT TV, monitor or oscilloscope. On the left side of the tube is the negative electrode (the cathode) and a little to the right is the positive (the anode), which is in the form of a metal disk with a small hole in the middle. To the right of the anode there are two additional electrodes which, when connected to a high DC voltage, deflect the beam from its straight line upwards to the positive electrode. The beam itself is actually invisible, but is made visible by adding a small amount of some inert gas into the tube (neon, argon etc.).
    The contemporary physics asserts that this is a beam of negative particles, called electrons, traveling from the cathode through the anode and then hitting the opposite wall of the tube.
    I assert that this so-called “beam” is actually an electromagnetic vortex (EM-tornado).

    (a real image of a CRT taken from the Youtube video Magnetic Forces and Magnetic Fields.)
    What the author of this answer regards as contradictory in the assertion of moving negative electricity from the cathode through the anode to the opposite wall are two things. The first is of principle nature: one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative and not contrariwise (please see https://www.quora.com/Is-positive-and-negative-electricity-nomenclature-arbitrary). The second is a matter of fact. Let us examine the nature of electricity around the right part of the tube in the drawing above, in other words, let us examine it in front of the screen of a CRT television, monitor, or oscilloscope - we will always find that the detector shows intense positive electricity.
    That it is impossible, negative electricity to travel towards the screen and on its other side to appear positive electricity, shows the following experiment: we electrify a vinyl (gramophone) plate by rubbing it (as we know it is negatively electrified) and place it behind a big glass window. Then we test the nature of the electricity on the other side of the window. The detector shows presence of negative electricity just as it would have indicated without the glass. Glass does not change the nature of electricity on the other side.
    Before we present our explanation of this phenomenon, let us consider a few more experiments. We place a stiff copper wire on a table. Parts of its length don’t touch the table. Above a wire section that does not touch the table we hold a strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole down, so that the wire lies exactly under the middle of the magnet. Then we connect a new battery to the ends of the wire so that the positive pole is closer to us and the negative pole further away from us. At the moment of connection we will notice that the wire makes a strong deflection to the left and up. As soon as we turn the magnet over and repeat the same, the wire will make a strong deflection to the right and up. If we hold the magnet again with the positive pole down, now not directly over the wire, but left over it, however still close to it, we will notice that the wire after connecting to the battery makes a jerky movement to the right and down. How is this explained? In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus pole of the battery; it blows down on the right of the wire, up on the left of it; on the right of the wire both magnetic winds coincide (the effect intensifies), and on the left of the wire they collide (the effect weakens); the wire moves to where the effect only intensifies, namely to the maximum, and that is to the left and up. In the third variant, in which both winds only collide, the wire deflects to where the adverse effect is maximally attenuated or quite ceased, namely to the right and down.

    Now, facing a CRT oscilloscope, we let its beam run slowly and uniformly from left to right (visible as a bright dot moving horizontally from left to right in the middle of the screen); then, exactly over the center of the screen, we place a magnet with its plus-pole down. We will notice that the dot moves no longer horizontally, but that it slopes downwards and passes through the center. When we turn the magnet upside down, the dot slopes upwards, passing through the center again. If we compare this observation with what we have just said about the experiment with the copper wire and the magnet, we find the same thing happening in both cases. We conclude that the rotational direction of the magnetic wind generated by the beam in the oscilloscope coincides with that of the wire, as long as the positive pole of the battery is closer to us. So it's also the oscilloscope's plus side closer to us when we stand in front of it.
    [ The (+)pole of the magnet points downwards, the beam of the oscilloscope approaches it from the left. On the right side of the beam its magnetic wind blows down, i.e. both winds match; so, the beam is shifted upwards. When it goes to the right side of the screen, also on the right side of the magnet, then their winds collide, so the beam is shifted downwards.]
    We explain this phenomenon as follows: the positive electricity radiating from the anode spreads to the right into the broader part of the Braun tube in the drawing above. Since the anode is a disc with a circular hole in the middle, this electricity, with the help of the suctioning minus cathode on the other side of the anode, forms a vortex which is directed to the opening of the anode and continues to the cathode. This electromagnetic tornado is actually the beam that is visible when a small amount of an inert gas is introduced into the tube.
    So when we stand in front of an oscilloscope and the bright dot lies still in the center of the screen, then it flows in the tube around the bright dot invisible positive swirling electricity towards us and from the very dot begins a vortex in the opposite direction towards the hole of the anode and onward to the cathode. The bright dot is actually the top of this EM-tornado. (Even with toys that cause a vortex in a water-filled container by means of a small electric motor located at the bottom, it can be noticed that the movement of the water around the vortex is directed upwards, but in the vortex downwards).
    The fact that the vortex is deflected to the positive of the two additional electrodes does not contradict this explanation, because I assert that this is not something that can be simply accommodated under the postulate “plus attracts minus”, but rather a positioning of a motion consistent with ambient influences whereby maximum effects are achieved (we could observe something similar in the previous experiment, where the wire was deflected to the left and up while the magnet with its plus pole was positioned over it). For the effect of the vortex to reach the maximum, it is deflected to the positive electrode when additional electrodes are inserted in the tube.
    In the above-mentioned toys, the water vortex is fully upright when the electric motor is positioned right in the middle of the bottom of a cylindrical or slightly conical vessel. However, when the motor is displaced to one side of the vessel, the vortex is curved towards the opposite side. In this way, it strives to achieve the maximum effect, in this case to capture the largest possible amount of water and make it spin (YouTube video).
    In our case the electromagnetic vortex makes a curve to the positive electrode; thus it seeks to capture and spin the largest possible amount of positive electricity.
    [ When an air-tornado inclines to one side, then it does it to the side where the air-pressure is higher. Higher air-pressure means more air, so it strives to capture more air, make it spin and thus stay alive. If we imagine the positive electricity as a higher pressure, the negative electricity as a lower pressure, then the EM-tornado inclines of course to the higher pressure, i.e., to the positive of the additional electrodes. ]
    It can also be assumed that a non-symmetrical conical glass tube would make the vortex curved even without the additional electrified electrodes (drawing below).

    [please see also (in slow motion, let’s say 0.25 of the normal speed) how the vortex gradually position itself in the middle of the bottle in this YouTube video from 2:03 to 2:05].
    Another detail indicating that this is a kind of vortex is the shape which the bright dot takes when turning off the oscilloscope. It “dissolves” circularly. Something similar is also notic­eable on the water surface of the mentioned toy after switching off the electric motor.
    [ With the air- or the water-tornado, the force of the gravity is pulling the vortex down. With the electricity the suctioning minus cathode takes the role of the gravity, that is, the role of pulling the EM-vortex “down”.]
    Edit 09-Mar-2020: I have come across a YouTube video where it is visible with naked eye that the “beam” is actually a vortex.
    From 1:30 to 1:50. Please watch the video on Full screen.
  22. Like
    marcospolo got a reaction from sluggo in Relativity And Simple Algebra   
    But sound speed which is controlled solely by the medium it's in, that would be air, which we will assume is practically motionless compared to the speed of sound, then the speed of the source is not going to affect the sound speed in any way.  Also true is the fact that sound is not effected by the motion of the person hearing it.  Sound goes at "s" 760mph regardless of the motion of the source OR the motion of the receiver, OR the speed of anything else that happens to be in that air at the same time.  Sound always goes at "s" regardless of who is listening or who made the sound.
    If a jet fighter fires a gun then the gunshot sound will still only ever be moving at 760mph regardless of the speed of the fighter.
    Same exactly with light.
    Light velocity is only ever "c" relative to the medium called "vacuum".  Light speed won't ever be measured at anything other than "c" relative to the vacuum, which we must assume is not moving anywhere.   But "observers" and "sources" of light sure are in motion.  So, exactly like with sound waves, when an observer who is doing velocity "v" towards a light source, he is going to have a closing speed of c+v.  But light is still only really moving at c.
    Now if we insist as Einstein desires, to make that observer ignorant of his condition of motion, then he MUST claim that he just measured light to be going at c+v, as he has no other frame of reference from which to take accurate measurements.
    However, the problem is that Einstein already has done a switcheroo, as how did we calculate the speed of the observer?  We claim that light's speed is always "c", but against what reference do we measure the speed of the observer?
    Hint, it was the "absolute background frame of reference", which Einstein requires in all his theories, but claims that it doesn't exist.
    It exists all right, but it's IMAGINARY, exactly like every frame of reference, which we create ad-hoc as and when we require them to do calculations.
  23. Like
    marcospolo reacted to rhertz in Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.   
    I don't relate the future's fate of mankind to Einstein's relativities. I relate it to the disconnexion between 99.9999% of population being disconnected from the dominant 0.0001% left, with less than 10,000 persons ruling the fate of the rest: consume, give us your money and shut up!
    And this concentration of power is strictly based on the power of technology and disinformation, like it's happening (and accelerating) in the past 20 years.
    You, VictorMedvil, are no longer free to thought and express yourself. Your profile is being updated in real time at concentrated sites, owned by that group of persons, are your future steps are being predicted. If you behave, you'll stay. If you are noisy, well.....
    You are fed by force and you are not allowed to have any original thought anymore. If you do, you'll became tagged (like a person of interest).
    Go ahead, and try to make an statement that you are forced to consume trendy things (I saw that you like games), that social media is a tool for TPTB to dominate you and that MSM is full of fake news, and let's see what happens to you (at work, in your personal life, social life, etc.).
    That's what I mean about your future. And, in five years, try to form a movement against AI and robots displacing you from work, and stablishment blocking you to access knowledge, and see what happens. It's not so much time: it's only by 2024, which is around the corner.
    Such a state of affairs is achieved not by having an enlightened mankind, but by a dumbed down one. So, enjoy the new "bread and circus" paradigm.
  24. Like
    marcospolo reacted to rhertz in Cut The Bullshit In Physics   
    Since I was very young, I've been a fervorous reader of scientific theories and the biographies of the persons behind them. I can't tell why.
    Maybe because I wanted to understand the relationship between the whole persona's values, actions and commitments and their achievements.
    I did it while knowing that the general attitude is to separate the human being and its flaws or strengths from their work. I never could.
    I was used to do it in this way, whichever the field some famous person delivered his work: literature, art, music, science, politics, military, etc.
    Whatever caught my interest ended in that way.
    One example (maybe silly for you) is the "invention" of the transistor, which involved Shocley, Bardeen and Brattain from 1946 to 1947. Most people
    around me, at the University, were satisfied knowing the "one page history" about this discovery and something about the horrible person Shockley was.
    I remember reading several books where this history was given half a page or less. But it wasn't enough for me. I wanted to know their motivations, their goals, their feelings about each other, their background and every possible detail that led them to discover the junction
    germanium pnp transistor. Also, as an engineering student, I wanted to know the learning curve that existed between the initial discovery
    and the full "reliable" industrialization of this and the next generation of transistors (Shockley), which took more or less 10 years.
    I never asked myself why did I things in this way, as I enjoyed the technical knowledge as much I enjoyed the personal journey of those involved into any creation.
    This served a lot to understand the history of science as well the science itself (which are completely different topics). Today, in educational boards is being discussed if history of physics (for instance) should be taught along with physic theories. There is some consensus into the
    fact that teaching both causes the student to loss focus onto what college or high school want them to learn. Teaching physics is almost like to follow a structured body of knowledge, as in an academic book, with every piece of information connected to others in logical sequences. Teaching history of physics drives any student toward a tortuous road of individual actions connected to collective actions at the time around the central theory, times before the one being used to situate the developments, personal attitudes and emotions of the people involved
    (hate, envy, jealousy, stealing, plagiarism, lies, vindictive actions, contempt, etc.).
    Maybe because of an incorrect search of perfection and great dosis of innocency, I separated people at science in two groups: good people and bad people.
    Along my life, I've known both types, and I celebrate the first group and detest the second group.
    For instance, take four historical scientists: Newton, Maxwell, Planck and Einstein. Now I order them from good to bad: Maxwell, Planck, Newton, Einstein.
    For me, James Clerk Maxwell embodies the perfection as a scientist (and also as a human being): Incredibly smart and creative, humble, prolific worker, a polymath (mathematician, experimental and theorical physicist, inventor, philosopher, poet, etc.), loyal friend, devote son
    and husband, pet lover, religious person, etc. I put him at the highest level in the scale of physicists, with no one near him. This is my opinion
    and, as such, has to be respected.
    To reach to such a valuation, it is needed to get access to primary information about any of them, historical information. A biography written decades after a person passed away is prone to have "deformations" of historical facts. In the case of Maxwell, I invite to read his biography,
    written by a friend two years after his death, wich covers since his childhood till his death, and is filled with personal notes, letters and
    comments about colleagues and friends.
    This biography portraits the insights of Maxwell's life and achievements and, not to wonder about, the profound respect and admiration
    toward him, which has passed the test of time, and is equally revered today as 150 years ago (read about IEEE homage).
    This is the title of his biography, far from having a political bias or any hidden agenda, available for free download (354 pages):
    London, MACMILLAN AND CO., 1882
    Contrary to many other science's icons, Maxwell hasn't accumulated a single accusation of wrongdoing or plagiarism.
    Had he lived 20 years or more, instead of his horrible death being 48 years old, probably he would had been capable of advance physics a century or more.
    He was close to relativity, he worked with gravity and was one of the founding fathers of statistical mechanics, along with Boltzmann. Besides his work with color theories and human vision, he founded the science of electromagnetism single handedly and his original 20 equations in
    quaternions (of course, he credited previous practical and theoretical values which he used as evidence: Faraday, Gauss, Weber, ,,,).
    Reading this bio, along with his monumental Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, allowed me to follow the path of his prolific work, which is somehow random, as he had so many areas of interest.
    I did the same with Kepler, Newton, Laplace, Lagrange, Fourier, Kirchoff, Boltzmann, Planck, Wien, Einstein, Poincarè, Lorentz, Bohr, de Broglie, Rutherford, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi and so many others, that it allows me to have a vision of physics
    and its development that is very broad. And I not only read positive things. I also nurtured my knowledge by reading critics over theories
    and scientists. I don't adopt anything dogmatically.
    Einstein is, for me, the greatest enigma. Because of that, I devoted more effort researching about him than about any other one. And, as I said, I read and ponder positive and negative information about the persona and his work.
    After all of this amount of information digested and processed, still remain my OWN OPINION about any theory. I'm capable enough to read any theory and understand it and, when I have a doubt (because translation to English sometimes are biased), I work with the original papers (german, french, italian, etc.).
    So, my anti-relativity position (and I don't have replacement theories) is based on personal convictions, not inductions.
    - I don't believe in Lorentz Transforms (Poincarè, to name them properly). They are fallacious as they are developed by using the same conjectures   that they are supposed to prove wrong (that light is not aditive to the motion of sources or receivers).
    - Extending that to the second derivation of Lorentz Transforms (1905 Eistein's paper), the thing is more evident (the use of c+v and c-v to later prove  his second conjecture (he called postulate) is incredibly wrong and I don't understand why the scientific community didn't
    scream FOUL!),
    - I don't believe in length contraction, unless it can be stated as a perceptual and subjective phenomena, which IS NOT SCIENCE.
    - In the chain of events of disbelief, I also don't believe in time dilation, which suffers the same considerations as length contraction.
    - Therefore, I don't believe in relativistic mass (even Einstein disproved this) nor I believe in relativistic adition of velocities (due to the violation of 2nd. postulate  within the same 1905 paper.
    - I don't believe that space-time is a physical entity. It's OK for Minkowski, a mathematician, to believe on it in the mathematical world.
      But space and time have no material properties and can't be subjected to effects of physical actions.
      They are mathematical definitions!!
    - I don't believe in space-time bending/slowing under gravitational fields (less yet in gravitational waves). You can't deform the structure of
      nothingness by something. Space and time are human creations to serve as references to express position and motion, but are abstract
      creations. Gravity is real, and exists even if we don't. Big difference with space and time.
    - I don't believe in re-interpretations of singularities at differential calculus. They are exactly what they mean: special failures of calculus at
      cartesian coordinates, due to some particular and unexplained phenomena. It's similar to give a physical interpretation to the ln(0), or to
      value of gravitational force when r=0. And this problem with infinities extedns also to the quantum physics, leading to renormalization?
      Hence, I don't believe in black hole theories that are derived from the GTR solutions.
    - I don't believe in a primordial singularity with infinite energy and temperature that went off and created the Universe. Plain and simple.
    If it helps, I believe in the spherical shape of Earth, planets, moons and stars. Also, I believe that rockets do work in vacuum and that
    artificial satellites exist. Also, I believe in the heliocentric theory, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, electrons and quantum levels of
    energy (and their transitions with a photon mediating).
    I hope that these explanations may help you to label me in the proper "cranck" category, if there is one for me.
  25. Like
    marcospolo reacted to LightStorm in Cut The Bullshit In Physics   
    I already stated it. Gravity depends on distance where as acceleration felt in an elevator is the same at all points inside it. I am amused that you are not able to follow.
  • Create New...