Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.

On Sep 3, 6:10 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Then we have a common goal and there should be no animosity between us.
Indeed! (Btw, bleevit or not: I LIKE you.)

< What I will not tolerate is this absurd notion that
time itself can change as a function of velocity or altitude .
Not "time itself" (meaning physical time) but the rate at which
clocks and all other physical mechanisms transpire.

< Hafele and Keating are a pair of lying shits.
Here's what wackypedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_p


I looked at wakipediac's article and it's about GR!
H & K's Pan American experiment dealt with STR's claim that
all velocities are purely relative. (If we take Earth as our
"stationary frame of reference", the two clocks in the air should
BOTH have run slow compared to the one at rest on Earth.)

< Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury Amount
(arcsec/century) Cause
5025.6 Coordinate (due to the precession of the equinoxes)
531.4 Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98±0.04 General relativity
5600.0 Total
5599.7 Observed
Remember, this is per century. That's 100 orbits of the Earth around
the
Sun, or 415 orbits of Mercury which orbits the Sun every 88 days.
Each orbit of Mercury is 360 degrees, and a degree is 60 arc minutes.
[snip]
and Einstein with his trusty 3-figure slip-stick
and book of log tables was able to calculate far better than any
modern
computer or calculator because he was a genius. >

Though none of that is related to Hafele-Keating's results, the
precession
of the orbit of Mercury, etc, was well known within a range of say 34
- 50,
in 1916. What seems to be ignored by our gurus is ... wait a sec and
I'll
quote it for you from A flower ... oh well, here it is, plus much
more than I intended to paste in:
<<< Note. We seem to be faced with an unhappy choice: Either Einstein
was a moron, a "genius" only as judged by a bunch of idiots; or he
did
things right the first time but not in the way his final paper
claims.
In an admittedly weak defense of The Scientific Establishment, I
choose
the latter. {The equations have recently overruled my prior
opinion.} ...
His General Theory recently blew up also; as will be shown when
we get there. ... To fill you in on something new: I glanced at his
1916 paper again just to see how close to its end the above quote,
"We now examine the influence exerted by the field of the mass M
upon the metrical properties of space", had been. But something on
page 62 caught my eye:"defined in the sense of Euclidean geometry".
Instant suspicion, to be justified in Chapter Four: Not only is it
well known that he used non relativistic "time" in his GR
predictions,
now I see that he used "Euclidean geometry"!
Then, says the remorseless logic, he didn't use "Relativity"
at all (!!) in calculating the precession of Mercury's orbit. Nor
any place else, nor ever.
He used the Euclidean geometry of Cartesian co-ordinate systems
and the absolute time of everyone; but then (via the tensor equations)
inserted THE PHYSICAL DEFORMATIONS ─ the variable density of the
material
filling conceptually-metrical "empty space", coupled with the
variable
rates of events taking place in such a varied-density field ─ as
measured
with Newtonian absolute time. Therefore, in hieroglyphics and double
talk,
*he plotted the Lorentzian PHYSICAL deformations on a classical
Newtonian
co-ordinate system*!!
Nothing had changed. Einstein was taught classical physics and never
left it.
He never used or understood the mathematics of the absurd, defective,
and now
obsolete Special Theory of Relativity which, the defense insists, he
didn't
invent in the first place. [The prosecutor reserves the right to reply
later.]
As will be shown in Chapter Five, in his GR paper he went back to
Lorentz
and erased Minkowski, but neither he nor anyone else knew he'd done
so.
And then, in 1952, he climbed out of the bottomless pit and recognized
─ if
perhaps only from far away and but for a fleeting moment, one of the
main
sources of everyone's trouble:

Einstein's "empty space" does not exist!
Towards the end ─ by magical e.s.p. ─ Einstein
understood his own message.>>>

< I'll tell you this, Lebau. I adhere to the scientific method, and
I'm
a mathematician as well. As a mathematician I recognise mathematics
is
an art form as well as a useful tool. It is a language, it can be
poetry
or it can be a shopping list. One can lie with it or one can be
religious
with it or one can orate with it - but only to those that are versed
in
the language. It is a means of communicating ideas, and it is a
formal
language. With it I have created a program, and with that program I
have made discoveries. [snip] This is the program:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm >

Thank you, Andy; I will download and study it.

< Waxing poetical, it was said by Johannes Bernoulli upon reading
Newton's
anonymous solution to the brachistochrone problem, "I recognise the
lion
by his paw" (referring to Newton's handwriting). >
Here is another quote from A Flower:
<<< On page 2 of the Principia Newton wrote,
"I heartily beg that what I have done here may be read with
forbearance;
and that my labors in a subject so difficult may be examined, not so
much
with the view to censure, as to remedy their defects.
Is. Newton Cambridge, Trinity College, May 8, 1686"
He mapped the same "Island" I do. Though our paths were different,
the underlying reality is the same.
So as we examine a few of his words \and concepts, be aware that
Though I came to bury Newton I stay to praise him.
Here was a Man who understood everything he was doing, including its
limitations.

Beneath the carpet of pygmies standing upon each other's shoulders
row on row,
There was indeed a Giant.
And beneath him another, Galileo. And Thales. And others.


glird
.

Quantcast