Re: Newton and Einstein


"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134029736.581967.211870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1133945044.881557.109060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> >> "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:dn57lk$jl3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> > I think that Newton and Einstein are the two greatest in the history
>> >> > physics. They made mistakes, of course, but that does not make
>> >> > either
>> >> > of
>> >> > them less genius. Today, we ought to recognize those mistakes and go
>> >> > further. Could this be possible in this NG?
>> >>
>> >> Newton is one of the greatest scientists. Einstein was just there at
>> >> the
>> >> right time.
>> >
>> > It is really easy to tell if someone knows about the history of physics
>> > at the turn of the century with statements such at this.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> With the information and tools Newton had at that time, I don't know
>> >> what
>> >> mistakes that you think he had made. On the other hand, because of
>> >> the
>> >> null
>> >> result of MMX, Lorentz Transforms were developed. In doing so, Morley
>> >> made
>> >> a mistake. Later on, Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR) developed
>> >> separate
>> >> theories based on the erroneous mathematics. And since Einstein (or
>> >> his
>> >> team) just copied Poincare's work, that was Einstein's mistake.
>> >
>> > It is funny how "erroneous mathematics" manage to predict so well.
>>
>> When point A and point B fly apart, SR predicts how each point will
>> observe
>> a slowdown in the passage of time of the other. This is fine. However,
>> when points A and B start out at the same point with no speed between
>> them,
>> and when either or both of them move away and finally meet again with no
>> speed between them, each point will experience a lesser passage of time
>> than
>> the other according to SR. This is utterly absurd. What did experiment
>> show? Experiment did show how both points have different passage of
>> time.
>> Thus, the only logical conclusion is that both SR and LET are wrong
>> because
>> they are based on erroneous mathematical constructs --- the good old
>> Lorentz
>> Transforms .
>
> Your personal hangups are irrelevant. Experiment supports SR, so you
> have no basis to argue unless you can demonstrate an actual error in
> the mathematics. That would be interesting.

You are ignoring the experimental results. <shrug> Better gripe to Dr.
Roberts.

>> >> > If so, we could start from these:
>> >> >
>> >> > Gravity is not Attraction between masses (Newton's mistake). And
>> >> > yet,
>> >> > current theory of the tidal waves on the Earth is based on that
>> >> > wrong
>> >> > idea.
>> >>
>> >> Gravity is the attractive force between masses (or something in the
>> >> masses).
>> >> Newton discovered this, and he remains correct. GR is an extention of
>> >> SR.
>> >> If SR is faulty, what does that say for GR? Let's say if believe in
>> >> (spiritually) GR's nonsense of curvature in spacetime, you can write
>> >> an
>> >> equation describing the energy associated with an object under the
>> >> influence
>> >> of spacetime's curvature. In doing so, the conservatin of energy
>> >> requires
>> >> gravity to be a force. So, under the mathematical model of GR, the
>> >> curvature in spacetime causes a force between objects with mass. This
>> >> force
>> >> could be repelling.
>> >
>> > Well, since SR isn't faulty there is not a problem.
>> >
>> > Yes, forces in GR between two masses can be repulsive with the right
>> > assumptions. However, whether the assumptions are physical or not is a
>> > different matter entirely. Solutions that result in things like
>> > Alcubrie's warp drive are not physical but they are solutions.
>>
>> What? Alcubrie's warp drive? Please go to science fiction forum to
>> discuss
>> your point of interest.
>>
>> >> > Curvature of space is a reality, but space-time is wrong (Einstein's
>> >> > great
>> >> > idea, and mistake too).
>> >>
>> >> The curvature of space is so small in our backyard. The 1st order
>> >> effect
>> >> matches with Newtonian physics. It is no wonder that GR's curvature
>> >> in
>> >> spacetime matches with observation to the 1st order. However,
>> >> Mercury's
>> >> orbital anomaly is due to the 2nd order effect. Einstein got himself
>> >> into
>> >> the hall of fame among the dozens or so who actually predicted this
>> >> anomaly
>> >> through clever mathematical manipulation. Einstein's 1st mistake on
>> >> the
>> >> derivation was that he did so without his field equations and thus
>> >> without
>> >> the Schwarzschild metric. After Schwarzschild came up with the
>> >> Schwarzschild metric, Einstein's 2nd mistake was to rely on the two
>> >> constants (only accurate to the first order through observation) to
>> >> derive a
>> >> 2nd order accuracy. Yes, Einstein and later generations of physicists
>> >> manipulated this where each physicist has a unique method of fudging
>> >> the
>> >> answer. The correct way of doing it is to apply the conservation of
>> >> energy
>> >> by taking the derivative to get rid of one constant and by taking
>> >> another
>> >> derivative to the angular momentum to get rid of the 2nd constant. In
>> >> doing
>> >> say, you will not find in math any anomaly at all which is
>> >> contradictory
>> >> to
>> >> observation. Bending of photon is another chapter of discussion.
>> >
>> > All that babble is based on the false premise that the precession
>> > effect is derived without resorting to Einstein's field equations. I
>> > find that amusing because it is obviously untrue.
>>
>> Einstein had a genious way of deriving that with or without the field
>> equations and with or without the Schwarzschild metric. Do you not know
>> the
>> history? How untrue is this history?
>
> Since we can go back and forth on this forever without making any
> progress, why not just show me the paper where he derives the effect in
> the fashion you describe?

www.google.com "how to use google"

Does that sound familiar?

>> > The precession effect is derived in linearized GR, and is a standard
>> > feature in every GR textbook I have seen.
>>
>> Not linearized. All textbooks basically copied Einstein's creative
>> derivation with Schwarzschild metric.
>
> Yes, linearized. MTW, Wald, and Carroll are the three I am thinking of
> and all three have the derivation using at least linearized GR. MTW and
> possibly Wald [I don't have a copy of Wald offhand] also do the
> precession of perhelion derivation using the Schwarzschild metric.
>
> I have looked at these books and I know what I am talking about. Have
> you looked at them? I find it amusing how often I have to explain that
> the passage some crank says isn't in a particular book actually is in
> the book. I know because I tend to have the book in question.

You still have not understood the way the anomaly of Mercury's orbit is
derived. I think you never will. <shrug>

>> > Your accusations of "mathematical tricks" are utterly laughable. If you
>> > don't like the math, show an inconsistancy or be quiet.
>>
>> I did. You are a troll.
>
> Unlike yourself, who hides behind a pesudonym, I use my real name and
> do not change it when things get inconvinient for me.

Giesse is a miserable name. You should consider to change it. On the other
hand, 'Koobee Wublee' has the ring of a celebrity.

> Though you are right, I troll cranks. It provides much amusement and it
> keeps my mind sharper than it otherwise would be.

As I so expect it that you are a troll. To gain any amusement out of your
trollish behavior is very sickening. Try Bilge's favorite such as
alt.morons. I am sure you will discover a flood of entertainment values in
that thread but not here.

>> >> > Time dilation is incorrect. The speed of light and time cannot be
>> >> > connected
>> >> > (Einstein's mistake).
>> >>
>> >> Experiments do show both speed and gravity actually result in observed
>> >> time
>> >> dilation. How is the speed of light and time not connected? What do
>> >> you
>> >> mean by this connection?
>> >>
>> >> > "Universal" aether does not exist, but that does not mean that space
>> >> > can't
>> >> > have any properties. Otherwise the curvature of space can't be
>> >> > explained
>> >> > in
>> >> > any way.
>> >>
>> >> If GR fails to deliver the 2nd order effect, the existence of Aether
>> >> seems
>> >> to be more likely, don't you think? Since space is empty, it is
>> >> extremely
>> >> silly to talk about the curvature in space. It is even more silly to
>> >> talk
>> >> about why mass and energy (both observed quantities) can cause a
>> >> curvature
>> >> in spacetime. GR fails miserably to address this point. Newtonian
>> >> physics
>> >> also fails at explaining why there is an attractive force in the 1st
>> >> place.
>> >> At least, Newton did acknowledge this short coming. Einstein just
>> >> shoved
>> >> this issue under the rug. Oh, yes, there are these hypotheical
>> >> virtual
>> >> particles in vacuum. Experiments do hint at their existence (and just
>> >> hint). Since there are no ghosts, a good way to explain these virtual
>> >> particles is through the existence of the Aether, don't you think?
>> >
>> > Amazing. You talk and talk and yet you manage to get so much wrong.
>>
>> Where?
>
> Reading is, in fact, hard.

I agree. As a troll, you seem not to possess any reading capability.

>> > GR is a model, it is not a philosophy. "why" is not addressed in
>> > physics, and saying that a theory does not answer "why" suggests the
>> > person saying it really doesn't have any real objections to the theory.
>>
>> GR is a religion. In order for a young physicist to advance in his
>> academic
>> career, he must confrom to the state religion of GR as well as SR.
>
> Sounds like you failed to understand GR and are blaming everyone but
> yourself for it.

No, I do understand it. Your comments on the contrary prove you don't even
understand GR.

>> > The effects of virtual particles are well known and are nowhere near as
>> > speculative as you make them appear to be.
>> >
>> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html
>> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
>>
>> A much better explanation for them is through the existence of Aether.
>
> Except the observed conditions that restrict the possible properties
> the aether must have are just as easily satisfied by our current
> theories. Unlike the aether, the current theories make testable
> predictions.

What is my current theory? Not only being trollish, you are utterly
delusional.

So, you are replacing Mr. Hobba as one of the three stooges hinding under
Dr. Robert's skirt. Did he give you all the GR books that he could not
return them for a complete refund?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
    ... mathematics and physics. ... My previous advice to using m_ab instead a scalar mass correction was ... "Historical order" is not one of tools of scientific methodology. ... You don't know that History is a science? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple electricity, and yet.....!
    ... I did, you mispelt "professionally" and failed to answer my question, troll. ... | something to do with the empty space in the CRT limits the current? ... Refusal to discuss physics noted. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: math class from Hell (aka Bantys nightmare)
    ... literate and numerate whether they *love* these things or not. ... giving up mathematics altogether and spending the time ... I first took physics in college in my sophomore ... I was a history major - a serious history major wanting to be a ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
    ... >I have a far better grasp on the history of relativity, ... >>>relationship to the ether was the same. ... >in the physics underlying the maths not the maths themselves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • ebooks share list 30
    ... free ebooks share ebook share ... Diversity: The Changing Faces of Wales: Essays in Honour of Tudor ... Ideas and Concepts in Nuclear Physics: ... Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)