The false god(s) of physics

So you have nothing!
Thanks!

hes dead but like JC he is worshiped none the less by his disciples!

 

It is ****ing hilarious that you still post this moronic bullshit and think you’ve actually disproven Einstein and all of modern physics. Lol

 

So you are saying there is no afterlife as well as saying the god Einstein does not exist?

 

And he has become an atheist saying the god Einstien does not exist as he is dead and is therefore saying there is no afterlife!

 

In the OP I cited a couple people that point out rightfully so that SR and GR is nothing more than 'metaphysics' which is faith based fiction rather than scientific fact.

Depends what you mean by that since time is a specifically set interval and locally at sea level tick away at the same speed.

Inertia
read
Clocks and the Equivalence Principle

Its the inability of the clock to tick away at a perfect interval with respect to both gravity and velocity. Not sure how to interpret what you said.

You could destroy the definition of a second and make it anything goes, but if a second is the standard which is the way we look at it outside einsteinistic physics then you have a standard reference that you can depend upon. Read Ron Hatchs work, getting the gps to produce good results, get this down to 1cm accuracy required him to toss out GR and SR and use MLET to fix it.

Yes they are thank you.

 

I see you are still carrying on with the heretical defamation of Lord Einstein .. repent and be saved !

 

Sure, I'll bite.

To start with, here is a link to the full text of the thing, the link you gave was behind some pay wall.
Reuterdahl, Einsteinism, its fallacies and frauds

This is from the 1930s, and it highlights some of the concerns people had at the time. And to be fair, rightly so, special and general relativity were counterintuitive and radical when they were proposed. However, actually reading the thing, most of the objections seem to be artefacts of the previous paradigm.

For instance, Reuterdahl criticises the idea of light having an absolute speed (even when measured in different frames). He brandishes the "law" that everything that moves has a relative speed with reference to an observer (from Galilean relativity). He seems to think that relativity was formulated not having taken into account the obvious truth of that rule, when really, relativity explicitly challenges the reality of that rule. To be fair, Galilean relativity is very intuitive to humans, and special relativity is not, so these are understandable concerns. That being said, he provides nothing to differentiate between the two claims, no evidence other than the Galilean point being a "law".

Is this a paper that you argue the truth of? As a self-proclaimed agnostic? Here are some quotes from that paper:

It is divine mechanics that triggers the phenomenon. The energy of photons is an stimulus and the thoughts which are triggered or expressed are fed thoughts and feeding was done in precreation era by the highest center of the universe ( Creator B.B.B ).

Where Does Prayer Message go ? Prayer message goes as shown in Figure 5 to highest center of the universe via first transcription where it is realized and it is accepted, the highest center sends two messages to B.B.Bs working as higher center in cancer cell.

It confirms divine nature of Photon and matter rather than particle nature or dual nature ( wave packet )​

The thread of the paper (as well as all parts of it) is poorly written and difficult to follow. Googling the affiliations, there are more details on criticisms in here (it is for a different paper, but I think a lot of the criticisms apply). To be fair, it's very unclear what you're trying to say with this paper.

Well, as we have generated more and more ways of investigating relativity, relativity sits outside of metaphysics (although there may be aspects of relativity that does not, and you can label that whatever you want, but that's not really a problem for the idea as a whole).

I mean, other than the errors (time dilates rather than compresses, time travel is not deemed true by relativity), there doesn't seem to be much of an argument here. Yes, people actually hold relativity as true.

This is certainly an argument that has been brought up before. I haven't looked super closely into it, but the presentations and texts I've seen so far have been too broad to go into the amount of detail needed. I haven't seen anything that looks particularly persuasive. I'm sure he is an excellent GPS developer, but with mostly a technical rather than scientific background, I see no particular reason to believe that he wouldn't just fall into the same conceptual traps around relativity that most lay-people do.

"Intend to"? Why wouldn't you just get to it in the opening post?

I (and google) haven't seen any reference to that other name.

This seems to be a good first step:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

A good first step is to address the points made in the OP.

I did.

You dont think it wise to know what you are talking about before you start talking about it?

The trap of not being suckered into buying wooden nickels?

So do I despite all the dishonest comments made regarding my position by trolls.

who are you to make such a claim? (demonstrating no basis in fact for that matter)

Yes getting the gps system to work destroyed weinersteins relativity. Its about time 'physics' is freed from that 'metaphysical' monstrosity.

Nope, wrong link, not sure how that got in there, it was from a different discussion, disregard it. Must have been stuck in the clip board buffer.

Neither did you.

Most everything illogical is in fact counterintuitive.

Feel free to put whatever label you want it, personally I dont disingenuously label centuries accepted fully observable "laws" of 'physics' an artifact.

Thanks for finding it out here.

 

Still not able to demonstrate weinerism is actual 'physics' and not a religion? From our previous discussion on the matter (which prompted this thread in the first place), we are still waiting for you to demonstrate how 'space' itself, ie is physically capable warping as you were arguing in the previous thread. Anything? Anything at all yet?

 

Why are you asking "ME" to demonstrate this ? - I am just telling you what modern day Science states - and they all tellin us dat space able to curve .. and somtin bout "space time continuum" and the "fabric of space"

all hokus pokus according to you I know - but dat wat day sayin

Now who should a novice believe ? Koko - or dem scientist ?

 

because you said it, you agreed with it, and you tried to litigate it, ya think?

Ok so now you want to blame your lack of understanding physics on to them. Great way to go through life on your knees accepting whatever they tell you incapable of validating their sales pitch is anything more than wooden nickels.

dat taint it attaw, koko put up dem dar refeer tings dat profv de points. dats jest simpo cyfrin to koko, but den dars dose religious fokes uppy yonder, well daze awe tahd up in nots ober it.

 

Once again you are making a whole bunch of accusations against me - which are false - things I did not say - and then talk about smoking the pipe .. .

Who smokin da pipe mon !

 

Lol koko still thinks he has disproven Einstein and all of modern physics.

 

Of course you didnt! LOL

 

Didn't what Kojo .. I can't make sense of what you are trying to say ?

 

The evidence put forward is strong - Einstein was a "wienie" who can argue with that brilliant argument ?!

 

I think I have.

• You present Reuterdahl's manuscript, I point out that it doesn't present any arguments (and simply doesn't consider the ramifications of relativity).
• You present some Tesla quote about metaphysics, yet as General Relativity moves into the range of the measurable (such as your Ron Hatch claims), this isn't really relevant any more.
• You present a Ron Hatch argument, but there aren't any references to any claims we can explore (indeed, they seem conspicuously well guarded). Below, I've dug a little deeper, but still most of the time, it's just Hatch not understanding General Relativity.
• You introduce nicknames for Einstein, which just makes it sound like you have an axe to grind (also, it makes me think you're referring to Weinstein when I read it).
• You say one can't point to General Relativity outside of the mathematical models, and I showed you a list of tests of relativity, and how they've turned out (I should perhaps also add the equivalent one for special relativity)

Primarily, I've found most of the details to be behind pay walls, or otherwise unavailable. The stuff that is not behind pay walls tends to be very wishy-washy, hard to make an educated judgement from.

An example of that is this. He mentions getting the sign right on Periapse precession terms (the Mercury one being one of the flagship tests of General Relativity). Yet the measurements and predictions in question (here is a recent one) doesn't seem to get the sign wrong.

However, a clear statement that can be identified in that presentation is that LIGO would indicate failure of General Relativity, when in fact LIGO ended up confirming it (in particular, this shows that Hatch acknowledges LIGO's ability to probe the question).

Another interesting one that I did find was this:
https://ur.booksc.org/ireader/43044852 (or https://ur.booksc.org/book/43044852/ecb551 for download)
This suggests a Ron Hatch style "fallacy" of General Relativity (where a prediction of General Relativity is said to contradict evidence from GPS), however, further analysis shows that properly understood, General Relativity agrees with the results. (Don't get me wrong, it is not a stupid question to ask, the paper even discusses some relativity big shots getting the details wrong and phrasing it sloppily, but the issues seem to be with the presentation from the physicists, not with General Relativity as such).

To be fair, it's not super clear from your OP what you believe and what you don't. In a post aimed against Einstein, you link it to time travel (which suggests a very broad interpretation of what you count as Einsteinism), later (not in the OP) you laud a Lorentz' aether version (I think) which suggests you have a much more narrow view of what parts are characteristic of Einstein. It's not really set up for decent discussion if we don't know what basis you're working from.

There are areas of relativity that are still unknown to us (and may always be unknown to us). That's not a problem for the parts of relativity that we are able to probe.

In fact, we're well aware that General Relativity is "wrong", even with the confirmations we have, we know it requires some correction (or more likely, it needs to fit as a special case of some more unified theory) to square with observations in quantum mechanics (and quantum mechanics needs to do the same). That's not really a problem, since we don't claim that General Relativity is the be-all end-all, it is merely one step along the way.

As mentioned above, the only reference I can find from not inside a pay wall arises from misunderstanding General Relativity, not General Relativity being wrong. I'm happy for other things to be presented.

I provided the link to tests of general relativity, didn't I?

Yeah, but so are some logical or true things. The fact that one can prove it wrong by misunderstanding it isn't really a problem.

I don't think the law he was talking to was based on any observations in the range where Einstein's relativity is suggested to manifest. Relativity challenges the old paradigm, you can't assess that by simply asserting that the old one is true.

 

huh? how about posting what you think he didnt understand?

Have you proven space physically warps yet? Proof=physics, otherwise metaphysics

where is the sign reversed to prove your claim?

I dont buy LIGO proved anything more than a disruption, I have not yet seen the data on they have on that if you do post it, until then I reserve judgement.

what do you think that paper means?

So what do you expect? The whole library of congress for an OP?
We start somewhere and flesh out details as we

 

I posted the full text to the paper that lays it out. My guess is that he took Ziman's statement about which clock would move faster at face value, whereas a more careful consideration comes up with a different answer. General relativity suggests that the fastest clock will be one that is in freefall, but it does not say (as Ziman assumed) that every clock in freefall will be faster than every clock not in freefall.

It's Hatch's claim that some sign needs to be reversed for the predictions to match. However, in the paper I quoted, I can't see any undue reversal of any signs. Why don't you ask Hatch where the reversed sign to prove his claim is?

Luckily, LIGO presents its information. Here's the first hit on google:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
If you want, it gives access to the detailed data as well:
https://www.gw-openscience.org/events/GW150914/
I'd also remind you that Hatch predicted that LIGO would disprove General Relativity, which means that on Hatch's view, LIGO has the sensitivity to tell the difference between gravitational waves and other kinds of disruptions.

I think it means what it says, if you apply General Relativity, instead of just some quote about some special case, then you get the answer supported by GPS measurements.

Of course, it is not clear that this is the same criticism that Hatch has presented in other places (in fact, it probably isn't). However, it does show that we should at least check whether Hatch's understanding of General Relativity is right before we believe he has disproven it. Of course, the other criticisms Hatch may have brought up are largely unavailable, unless we want to $$$.

No, I expect only so much as to let us know where we're starting from. I.e. whether we have to argue all the way from Galilean relativity or only argue for modern physics, or only about some very specific things that you think are characteristic of Einstein in particular.

 

As for taking shots, having only taken a basics physics class I understand it would be absurd to try to engage in a technical discuss regarding theories developed by someone considered one of the greatest physicists of all time. Which obviously you know and hope to get someone to take the bait to have such a discussion. However, even the most ignorant person does understand that the Atomic bomb worked and Einstein played a major role in the development of the Atomic bomb with his General Theory of Relativity.

So I will just make the following comments.

1. If a scientific claim is proven wrong that does not mean your religion is therefore proven correct. If one or more scientists are proven wrong that does not mean any religion is correct. Religious claims stand or fall on the actual evidence provided to support those claims. To put it another way - science denial does not support religion.

2. And of course no one performs ritualized obeisance to a dead Einstein out of fear, brainwashing, or hoping to get a supernatural favor.

3. There is real physical evidence that Einstein is real and the scientific claims made by Einstein are available as he wrote them. I don't have to rely on hearsay stories about Einstein written by anonymous authors ,70 to 200 years after the fact in a book compiled 400 years after the fact. Or claims about Einstein made by a man who never saw Einstein or heard him teach.

 

I agree. It is great entertainment in a strange sort of way.

 

Yeh, well sort of, since even elementary school children are taught the difference between weinersteins SR/GR and the 'rest' of modern physics.

 

By laymen, not his colleagues.

Sorry, Albert: Physics that challenges Einstein

Im not proposing to argue anything outside whats stated in the OP, but the above does prove your claim that weenie was one of the greatest physicists of all time is nothing more than mere 'glorification'.

Cite the specific data you refer to please so I can review it.

Its a religion when the alleged scientific claim is in fact metaphysics, unless of course you can prove 'space itself' warps.

Yes when they prove their religion is wrong then they prove their religion is wrong.

Yeh. thats the problem there is no evidence space can warp or time compresses.

But you and others just did you said:

That my friend is the substance of religion, belief without factual proof.

Yes there was a bag of flesh and bones named einstein that existed on this planet, never disagreed with that, not sure why you would bother to even say such a thing?

Oh? So if someone in the year 1900 claims 2+2= 4.99 and someone a hundred years later claims no! 2+2=4, the guy 100 years later should be disregarded? Seriously? That is the case here you know.

 

so then you are claiming LIGO proves gravity is a wave? Is that correct?

 

Well, at least there is some convincing arguments to black holes in that they very likely exist based on continued observation. I mean these daily observations carry much more weight than an outlandish stories a resurrection and a man god