Re: general relativity is wrong


Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115860876.627711.41700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > h2jd923j3902u@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > I just discovered that GR is wrong because the theory is
derived by
> > > > means
> > > > of fluid dynamics principles for incompressibe / compresible
flows
> > >
> > > This is simply not true.
> > >
> > >
> > > > but fluid dynamics principles are derived assuming a
incompressible
> > > > (flat)
> > > > space, otherways it they cant be applied
> > >
> > > Huh???
> > >
> > >
> > > > then space beeing compressible, fluid dynamics is useless
> > >
> > > How do you know "space is compressible"? What do you mean by
that?
> > >
> > > Besides, air is compressible -- do you really think fluid
dynamics is
> >
> > > useless in describing air?
> > >
> > >
> > > >>Which predictions are you asserting are wrong?
> > > >
> > > > all of them, expecial curved space
> > >
> > > This is physics, and the question is about predictions of
> > experimental
> > > results, not interpretations.
> > >
> > > And GR is applied in curved spaceTIME....
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> And what experiment can you propose which
> > > >>> will verify your alternative prediction?
> > > >
> > > > we introduce constants, gradients and curls to everything
> > > > no curved space, never anymore
> > >
> > > This is physics, and the question is about _EXPERIMENTAL_
results,
> > not
> > > interpretations.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your two postings here do imply that you know little or nothing
about
> >
> > > GR. Or physics in general. Or newsgroup etiquette. Perhaps you'll
> > have
> > > more success by studying them....
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > xxein: Sorry, Tom, you are wrong. You just met an interpretation
you
> > didn't like. What you may want to refer to is "the best available,
> > general/overall/self-consistent description". It is not
necessarily
> > the only description, nor the best. It is what we use (with
> > confidence) now. And as you should well know by now, I don't
question
> > consistently measured values. I question the circumstantial
physics
> > that provides us with these measurements. Again, my theme,
subjective
> > measurement vs. objective physics that provides the measurement as
> > such.
> >
> > Let's see if I can supply a concrete example of this difference.
Ok,
> > local physics, the 1st postulate of SRT. Did you ever 'really'
> > investigate why it requires the Lorentzian instead of the Galilean
> > transformation between FOR's? How did this proscription come
about?
> > Was it just because it worked mathematically and fit an
interpretation?
>
> Did you ever really do an experiment where a velocity of
> 1 m/s was combined with a velocity of 1 m/s and dit it give
> exactly 2.00000000000000000 m/s as opposed to the
> 1.99999999999999998 m/s that is predicted by the theory?
> Do you know of such experiment or do you just piss in the
> air?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Forgive me for splashing piss on your shoe but I had to let it out.
>
> Yes, you stink - we know.
>
> Dirk Vdm

xxein: You miss the point entirely and it is probably my fault for
assuming that people could possibly question their beliefs. I am left
with the assumption that just because you have measured that 2+2=4, 1+3
CANNOT =4 because you restrict your belief/physical interpretation to
2+2 and the resultant of 4 needs no other obtuse/funny/alternate belief
compilation.

You are truly depressing.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: general relativity is wrong
    ... Or physics in general. ... >> Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx ... > measurement vs. objective physics that provides the measurement as ... m/s was combined with a velocity of 1 m/s and dit it give ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
    ... I made a post about the last supper and the watch my marrige painting ... kind of fell visitor style and sat down next to me on the couch behind ... or inbetween me and the couch facing the right forward whee the tv is ... Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time
    ... In the absence of measurement, according to this view, ... >> It seems to me that this is the Copenhagen interpretation. ... > the Copenhagen interpretation was that reality is created only by the ... > the birds' evolution? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: einstein started a joke, QT continues it
    ... interpretation. ... Conduct the measurement, get the result R +/- dR, where dR is the ... If you use a ruler and a single clock to do measurements, ... from it on the two labs aquire a more and more absolute validity: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
    ... "Tom Roberts" wrote in message ... > Such averaging only reduces the errors if the errors of each measurement ... And given the large volume of Miller ...
    (sci.physics)