Albert's aberation about time and lack of basics absolutes
- From: "Arthur Knight" <ak738983@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:10:39 GMT
Joe, it does not matter whether clocks run faster or slower in different
places. Or different circumstances. Actual absolute time .is not affected.
We humans tend to believe we are the arbiters of everything in nature. A
clock in a plane travelling around the world was supposed to be a fraction
slower to prove Albert's theory about time. Friction or cosmic radiation may
well have slowed that clock down. And what direction was the plane
travelling. With the rotation of the earth, against it, over one of the
poles. Anyhow it does not matter, it is irrelevant. When scientists become
fixated they tend to twist the interpretations of experiments to justify
what they want to believe. Michelson and Morley's experiment "what a fraud".
I can tell you the real truth about that and all the resulting hogwash
extrapolated from it. The speed of light another fraud. It is long past time
to pull the plug on much in science that has been twisted and based on false
premises. The irony is why should it take a lay person like me to do it?
When it takes me all my time to remember my own name. There is nothing
special about me. It is just that I haven't forgotten how to use my common
sense. I cannot spell either and my spell checker isn't working. And even
when it does it changes things without my permission! I should not make
excuses lest I become one of them. You know. Oh well we all can?t be perfect
can we. But at least I'm awake up to many contradictions in science. They
stand out like sore thumbs for me and they will for you once you get your
basic premises and absolutes in focus. Everything then becomes so simple.
Religion and twisted science began when the first sly knave met the first
fool. Don't be a fool any longer. Especially you Bill. Start snipping the
academics instead of critics like me for a change. Something is fishy about
Albert?s perilion of Mercury. "Mathematicians work on it:? There are no
exceptions in nature, maths, and true science. I like Newton, even if he was
a little bit religious. Albert was a pantheist and was thus finally accepted
by the establishment they got a fright when they first thought he might be a
materialist. He got the refraction of light right with the eclipse and was
probably right about quantum theory, but made a terrible mistake with his
relativity and the speed of light. E=MC2 right or pretty close if taken in
the right context Except of course Energy cannot even as an equivalent be
strictly interchangeable with matter, and "mass" is a bit suss. Changing
simple because of change of direction and speed of a body. Anyhow the later
is debatable another time.? Local time" if you like. Arthur
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The simple truth about TIME and other absolutes
- Next by Date: Re: Are relativists some kind of sect? Mathematical funambulism, systems of units, and Newtonian limit
- Previous by thread: Re: The simple truth about TIME and other absolutes
- Next by thread: Re: Truce called with Androcles.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
