A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Relativity has been proven over and over again. Your ideas are ruled out by well-tested scientific theories. Apart from that, they don't explain anything.

There are physicists who do not believe that relativity has been proven. Are they all crackpots?

Pari concludes "that an imaginary four dimensional spacetime continuum is unfit as a foundation for physics, a science which mainly deals with measurements of velocities, accelerations and the changes of these vectors."

<snip>

As Pari correctly points out, Einstein in his celebrated paper of 1905 extrapolated the behavior of undulatory photons to rigid bodies of all sizes travelling in a straight line; and for the first time in history he created a science based on the manipulation of dates and the manipulation of measurements of length.

<snip>

A concept with even less fact but double in fantasy was Einstein's 'relativity of simultaneity',("There is no such thing as simultaneity of distant events") which Einstein claimed was an "insight(s) of definite nature which physics owes to the special theory of relativity." His other 'insight' was "eliminating mass as an independent concept".

<snip>

Pari summarizes;
"There is no direct experimental proof of the assumptions made by Einstein to postulate the relativity theory, the special or the general. Plausible alternative explanations can be offered for all laboratory and astronomical observations cited in support of the theory." Einstein's equations of relativistic dynamics are mathematically incompatible with the experimentally verified Plank's formula of quantum mechanics. These problems, as well as the concept of "negative mass" in relativity and Einstein's postulates of "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are all hypothetical concepts with no experimentally provable or other basis in science. Pari then points out that many physicists who believe that Einstein's theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may 'spoil their career prospects,' if they openly opposed Einstein's relativity.

<snip>

Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"
He is concerned that;
"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."
Pari also points out that "In deriving the field equations of general relativity, Einstein has used partial differential equations, which assume continuity of a uniform field or of the spacetime continuum.

A mathematical law expressing a regularity in the successive distances of the orbiting bodies around a central primary would be inconsistent with the assumptions of general relativity. And this regularity exists in the form of the Titius-Bode law from which Pari also concludes that the distance law is an integral part of gravitation; i.e. gravitation is quantized.

In a series of articles, A.A.Logunov and co-workers have made several important remarks. They point out that in general relativity the energy of a system and, therefore, its inertial mass does not have any physical meaning, since it depends on the arbitrary choice of the coordinate systems. Therefore, the assertion of equality of the "inertial" and "gravitational" masses in Einstein's theory is devoid of all physical meaning. Moreover, the arbitrariness of the coordinate transformations in general relativity makes it incapable of giving unique predictions for gravitational effects (bending of light, perihelion rotation, red shift and time-delay experiments.) They conclude that the absence in the general theory of relativity of conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the matter and gravitational field taken together, and also its inability to give unique predictions for gravitational phenomena, make it necessary to abandon the theory of relativity as a physical theory.

<snip>

Pari states that the goal of a Unified Field Theory was to unite the laws of gravitation and the laws of electromagnetism within a single basic structure of a universal law and that further, a great number of other capable mathematicians besides Einstein, also worked on this subject. In some of these theories, a fifth dimension was introduced. These attempts, by Einstein and numerous other authors, of unifying physics have all failed.

The recent versions of the unified theories, the "Superstrings" and the "Theories of Everything," says Pari, are pure speculations involving 10 or even 26 dimensions. The extra dimensions are supposedly curled up into invisible wormholes.

Ian Stewart in his book "The Problems of Mathematics" comments on these new developments in the Unified Field Theories;

"From such grotesque mathematical equations may the twenty-first century's System of the World be fashioned."
Harald Nordenson, in his book "Relativity, Time and Reality: A critical investigation of the Einstein Theory of Relativity from a logical point of view";

"I have often met persons, especially outside Sweden, who have expressed their astonishment that Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity, which many people consider as one of the outstanding achievements of this century. As a member of the Swedish Academy of Science which distributes the Nobel Prizes of physics I am on the other hand very glad that this was not done, since the Theory of Relativity is not physics but philosophy and in my opinion poor philosophy."

O'Rahilly describes the theory of relativity as "highly metaphysical"

Pari concludes;
"We consider the theory of relativity as science fiction or pseudoscience," and
"Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science base on hypothetical equations."

My opinion is that General Relativity, 'the spacetime continuum' was a deliberate scientific and mathematical hoax perpetrated on the scientific community for reasons that are unknown at this time. This scientific and mathematical hoax is still firmly in place with current scientific experiments continually being weighted in favor of, and data contrary to, being discarded in favor of the theory.

Challenging Einstein - A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I did explain why the efferent account is implausible, just as I also explained why these questions apply to your account. Yet you are still obstinately and completely unreasonably refusing to even try to answer them. Why is that? Why are honest and direct answers so impossible for you to provide? Is it because you are a hopelessly deluded and dishonest dingbat? Or is there some other reason for your ridiculous evasion?

I told you I don't like the interrogation. If you can't explain what you mean in your own words, then forget it.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lack of popularity doesn't mean these physicists are wrong. To call it garbage that quickly makes me wonder if you even read it.

I've taken a look at some of the stuff from the same author here: viXra.org e-Print archive, Amrit Sorli and it is not encouraging. The papers on vixra (an "alternative" version of arXiv, to be friendly) are pretty bad.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are physicists who do not believe that relativity has been proven. Are they all crackpots?
...

Challenging Einstein - A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic

Short answer: Yes.

LOL @ "Pegasus Research Consortium"

[davidm]

LOL, watch peacegirl pathetically, desperately google up something, anything, that she thinks can support her nonsense. Now she is copypasting stuff from obvious crackpot sites. Hey, peacegirl, there are tons of relativity deniers around. All of them are wrong. There are also people who believe in a flat earth.

You're wasting your time, as I've explained, but you are as usual too dumb to understand, or too dishonest to acknowledge when you have had your ass handed to you (I suspect the latter). Even if relativity theory proved to be incorrect for some reason, that is irrelevant to your claims. We have known that real-time seeing is impossible for hundreds of years, long before SR. Too bad for you and Lessans.

[davidm]

Hey peacegirl, you found a live one in John Lear. He appears to be as big a crackpot doofus as your dear old dad. A quick scan of his credentials reveals, among other things, that he thinks holograms and camouflage are being used to disguise life on the moon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I've taken a look at some of the stuff from the same author here: viXra.org e-Print archive, Amrit Sorli and it is not encouraging. The papers on vixra (an "alternative" version of arXiv, to be friendly) are pretty bad.

Why are they bad? Is it that they are being put on unofficial sites? There are other physicists saying the same thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Short answer: Yes.

LOL @ "Pegasus Research Consortium"

There is some really compelling evidence against SR, but who am I to dare challenge Einstein.

[But]

Ahem.

Because of found mistakes, which we are lazy to correct, we need to check and recheck the
foundations of Physics. As examples of mistakes: ”all” scientists used solution of dust collapse
almost century, but it was wrong [Journal of Cosmology, 6, 1473-84, 2010] and my own paper:
the unreal coordinate singularity of black hole surface is actually real [J. Contradicting Results
Sci. 1, 9-13, 2012]. Outstanding person and a successful scientist Rudolf Peierls also noticed
errors [Surprises in Theoretical Physics, Princeton University Press, 1979]; I have not got the
unappreciated his work, so I can not agree with him. Honest work on the errors, as I understand,
has not begun. You postpone everything until the Second Coming? But God speaks: Matthew
25:26.

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0035, Has Some Guy Called Bell Defeated Great Einstein??

In this paper,I introduce the virtual velocity of the particle. It is from the spetial theory of relativity, because of the velocity of the particles or Dirac equation be not able to explaine hydrogen atom phenamina. In the spetial theory of relativity, time dilatation and lenth constraction are related by the equation (1). I get from the above relation, the vitual velocity of a particle and the virtual speed of a particle can be beyond the speed of light. I think the virtual velocity and potential have nonlocality in physics, and wave function may exists there before we observe the particle's position. New quantum machanics is similar to Shrodinger equation.

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0165, Beyond the Speed of Light and New Quantum Mechanics



Wow, this vixra.org is really a treasure trove of bad shit.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are they bad? Is it that they are being put on unofficial sites? There are other physicists saying the same thing.

And all of them more or less crackpots or amateurs. Proving Einstein wrong is classic crackpot territory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is some really compelling evidence against SR, but who am I to dare challenge Einstein.

Yeah, bullshit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Ahem.

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0035, Has Some Guy Called Bell Defeated Great Einstein??

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0165, Beyond the Speed of Light and New Quantum Mechanics



Wow, this vixra.org is really a treasure trove of bad shit.

What language was that supposedly translated from, it certainly wasn't English.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

Relativity forbids any transmission of information faster than the speed of light.

According to peacegirl, vision does not involve any transmission of information

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, tonight I was sitting out watching the full Moon, and I saw 3 airplanes pass over. 2 of them I didn't hear at all, and the other I didn't hear till after I had seen it. sort of proves daddies statement, that we always hear an airplane before we see it, wrong. But I do know his mistake. My house is about 1300 feet from the Norfolk Southern main line and there are several grade crossings close by. We always hear the trains horn as they approach the crossing before we see them, but that could be due to the trees along the line. Daddy Dumb Dumb just got the wrong mode of transportation, another mistake.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is some really compelling evidence against SR,

but who am I to dare challenge Einstein.

Most of the evidence against SR is from the crackpot quarter, and it's not really compelling once you look at it critically.

The people who seriously challenge Einstein are those who understand SR and physics. Since you know nothing about SR, Physics, or science, you are in no position to challenge Einstein or anyone else who actually does physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to peacegirl, vision does not involve any transmission of information

I must disagree with this. According to Peacegirl the brain, looking through the eyes, acquires an image of the object being looked at, and that would constitute a transfer of information from the object to the brain. The problem is that Peacegirl can't explain how the information gets there instantly, which is faster than the speed of light. Peacegirl's model violates the known laws of physics, so there must be some unknown laws of physics that she hasn't shared with us yet.

Peacegirl, if you were to share these unknown laws of physics you could be rich and famous and would have plenty of money to hawk your book. And you would have lots of hangers-on who would agree with whatever you say, as long as you keep spending your money on them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did over a hundred times. Efferent vision.

Efferent vision is the idea you need to explain, it is not an explanation at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not retracting my statement just because light travels. We would be seeing the bug magnified due to the type of lens that the light is striking. You still have no conception of why traveling light does not bring us the image apart from the object, do you?

In this particular segment, we were discussing a magnified image, and the efferent vision explanation for magnification. According to optics we are not seeing the real object at all...we are seeing a virtual image made of light when seeing something magnified. This is in contradiction to your statement "We are seeing the real object due to light's presence". So, do you maintain that claim or retract it? Either way, you have yet to explain magnification in the efferent model.

Vague references to "the type of lens" are not explanatory in any way.

[davidm]

The Living Moon



You sure do love your loons, don't you, peacegirl? No doubt because you are one.

Love the tacky animated Pegasus gif at the bottom of the page, and of course the garish yellow and blue type on a black background. Another sign of loons is that their Web sites are always visual and usually navigational messes, for reasons that elude me, I must confess.

[davidm]

ViXra

It accepts submissions without requiring authors to have an academic affiliation and without any threshold for quality.

No shit!

Hey, peacegirl, this is the place for Daddy's book! Submit, submit!

[davidm]

Note that for the latest loon peacegirl has dug up, it's not just that relativity theory is wrong. No, it's a hoax, a conspiracy, perpetrated for mysterious unknown reasons.



Sure, the specific reasons are unknown, but no doubt the usual suspects are involved: The Illuminati, the New Wold Order, the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, and, of course, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no transfer of information that goes faster than the speed of light because light is not bringing any information. If you had understood anything, you would have seen that this doesn't even relate.

You are such a treasure trove of trash. Every time you let your yap fly open, the Stupid falls out.

The change of the state of the sun from OFF to ON in Lessans' scenario is information by definition.

When we learn the sun has been turned on, we are, uh, INFORMED of something! Lessans posits this information is transmitted instantaneously. This violates relativity theory by definition.

I know what the word theory means. Theory is a hunch or hypothesis …

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I don't like the interrogation. If you can't explain what you mean in your own words, then forget it.

Whose words do you think I've been using, Dingbat? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Why does this seem like an interrogation? Is it because I keep repeating my questions? That's only because YOU keep unreasonably refusing to answer them! Idiot! How dare we interrogate you by asking you questions and actually expecting you to answer! How cruel! You poor, poor victim! Do you actually think you should be allowed to ignore and evade pertinent questions with impunity?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well the knowledge he is bringing is based on absolute proof whether you believe it or not.

How does that possibly have anything to do with our conversation? We aren't discussing your crackpot of a father, we're discussing you're ridiculous standard of 'absolute proof' with regards to relativity.

Why are you always so dishonest like this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You wrote, and I quote, "the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon". An account of a phenomenon cannot change the actual phenomenon. An account is simply an explanation or a description and it is made up of words and/or numbers. Those words and/or numbers do not have the ability to change the thing they are being used to explain or describe.

It is as if you were saying that the flat Earth account changes the Earth from being an oblate spheroid to being a flat disk. Or, saying that the geocentric account changes the solar system such that it causes the Sun to orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.

You know what I meant Angakuk. You are nitpicking. Obviously the description of what is going on does not change the phenomenon. It explains the phenomenon. What is your agenda?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

How does that possibly have anything to do with our conversation? We aren't discussing your crackpot of a father, we're discussing you're ridiculous standard of 'absolute proof' with regards to relativity.

Why are you always so dishonest like this?

I'm not being dishonest. If relativity theory is subject to critical review, that's fine. But that's not what is happening. Anyone who has an issue with this theory could be kicked out of school. How dare you call my father a crackpot. What does that make you? You are more focused on your reputation than on actually hearing or considering what my father observed.