Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darwin123
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
 |
|
On Jun 29, 8:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
I studied it. I want to know why the IDIOT Einstein said
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
And I want to know why did you killed your wife. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
milibar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 5:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dredd wrote:
1. Relativity's is based on the equivalence of gravity and
acceleration
true or false? no reading books involved
Only true for GR, and not the whole story at all. In particular, the
EQUIVALENCE is only valid for measurements, and is valid only to lowest
order. (and there are other foundations as well.)
|
So definitely not false, but true indeed.
1.a. If it were false, then there would been no any relativity
whatsoever
true or false?
| Quote: |
2. But subsequently relativity results in contradicting own
foundations,
namely that gravity is not acceleration and acceleration is not
gravity.
true or false?
False. It is true that gravity is not acceleration,
|
You men FALSE but TRUE? a TRUE FALSE?
How can it be both?
| Quote: |
but that does not
"contradict" or "undermine" the foundations of GR.
|
If 2. is TRUE then 1. must be FALSE
please reread 1. and reread 2. including your answers
| Quote: |
Equivalence is not
equality.
|
It is other places. How does it differ?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
milibar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 3:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 1:41 pm, Vakium <wed...@execs.com> wrote:> Too easy they gets away with not answering the question they dont
like !!!
Relativity's is based on the equivalence of gravity and acceleration
So when you say acceleration you say gravity, and when you say
acceleration you say gravity.
The two are interchangeable only for local measurements. That is
an important qualifier in Einsteinian relativity.
There was a scientist, Ernest Mach, who developed his own
version of the general relativity without this qualifier. In his
version, gravity and acceleration are interchangeable even for
nonlocal measurements. I don't know which is correct, or even if they
are equivalent. However, I suppose one could say what you said for
Machian relativity.
|
Are you just saying that Einstein was wrong?
Or insufficient?
| Quote: |
But subsequently relativity results in contradicting own foundations,
namely that gravity is not acceleration and acceleration is not
gravity.
There is no such statement in relativity, as stated by Einstein
or anything else. Can you cite this?
|
Are you saying that gravity is acceleration?
| Quote: |
What is going on here?
My conjecture is that you have some type of reading disability.
|
Maybe, but you seems so fucking 100% stupid
| Quote: |
I strongly suspect you have problems with other subjects that you
"study." I suggest that you either get help or live gracefully with
the problem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 1:21 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 8:55 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
2. But subsequently relativity results in contradicting own
foundations,
namely that gravity is not acceleration and acceleration is not
gravity. true or false?
False. It is true that gravity is not acceleration, but that does not
"contradict" or "undermine" the foundations of GR. Equivalence is not
equality.
So, when did you become a lawyer? I thought you are a professor of
physics at IIT associated with the Fermi Lab?
This isn't law, this is reality. If you don't use words precisely, |
you can't describe physical reality precisely.
Gravity and acceleration are equivalent because for any local
measurement, one can not determine which is which. General relativity
says gravitational acceleration and kinematic acceleration are
equivalent for local measurements. Gravity and acceleration are not
equal because one can separate them with nonlocal measurements.
In that famous elevator of Einstein's, one can't tell the
difference between gravity and acceleration from a measurement made
only within the elevator.
However, lets examine the case of nonlocal measurements. If a
window were open on the floor of the elevator, and one had a good
telescope, one may see a planet by the reflected light of the sun.
This is a nonlocal measurement. one may see objects orbiting the
planet, some at distances comparable to the distance between planet
and elevator. One measures the relative acceleration of planet and
orbiting bodies relative to the elevator, one looks at the tidal bulge
of the planets oceans due to the heavier orbiting bodies. One may even
send out a projectile from the elevator to the planet, with a
Cavendish type apparatus to determine the precise mass of the body.
All of these are nonlocal measurements. With this extra data,
you go "who, this is a heavy planet. My apparent weight comes from the
planet. Because it comes from a large mass like this planet, I will
call it gravity not acceleration.
Kepler's Laws were determined with nonlocal measurements. It
would be impossible to determine the planets orbited the sun in
Keplerian orbits without taking looking across the solar system at the
distant planets and the sun. The tides are a nonlocal phenomenon. It
would be impossible to tell the tides were caused by the moon unless
one looked at the moon and correlated its rise times with the cycle of
the tides. The determination of which is gravity and which is
acceleration is, and was even before Einstein, a matter of nonlocal
measurements. Even Newton would probably agree.
One specific type of nonlocal measurement, the measurement of
tidal force, makes it especially clear. If the reference frame is
accelerating, there is no tidal force. By tidal force I mean
differential weight, not just the earth-moon-sun tides.
If the elevator is very big, bigger than the planet, with water
on the floor, the surface of the water will be flat. Acceleration of a
reference frame doesn't cause tides, since all measuring instruments
in the reference frame have to be accelerated equally. However, the
floor of the elevator may be larger than the planet. The edge of the
elevator far from the planet edge will show a lower tide than the
middle of the elevator. Water will bunch up near the center of the
elevator. This is a type of tide in the general sense. This would
indicate gravity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 3:39 pm, milibar <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 5:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dredd wrote:
It is other places. How does it differ?
|
Well, it usually does differ. When I took high school geometry,
they told me that two triangles were equivalent if all three angles
were the same. However, that didn't make them equal. The triangles
were congruent if all three angles and all corresponding sides were
equal. However, two triangles were equal only if all three angles were
equal, all three sides were equal, and all corresponding sides were on
top of each other.
Absolutely they are different words. If trade ten American
dollars for the equivalent number of Yen, then I can buy fish in
Japan. However, there is no amount of Yen that can equal ten American
dollars. And lest I get Japanese angry at me, I have to say that 10
Yen can never equal the equivalent number of dollars. Equal means
equal.
In Weight Watchers, 10 small oranges is equivalent to 10 small
apples. Oranges do not equal apples, however. However, the book uses
the word equivalent.
The common understanding is that equivalent doesn't mean equal.
Only a lawyer would make the two words equal, when they are only
equivalent in some situations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 3:43 pm, milibar <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 3:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is going on here?
My conjecture is that you have some type of reading disability.
Maybe, but you seems so fucking 100% stupid
|
Are you saying that having a reading disability and ignoring it
seems NOT stupid?
You are deficient in a lot more than relativity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 6:36 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 1:21 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
False. It is true that gravity is not acceleration, but that does not
"contradict" or "undermine" the foundations of GR. Equivalence is not
equality.
So, when did you become a lawyer? I thought you are a professor of
physics at IIT associated with the Fermi Lab?
This isn't law, this is reality. If you don't use words precisely,
you can't describe physical reality precisely.
|
So, you are advocating there is a difference between equivalence and
equality under the laws of physics. So, the words “contradict” and
“undermine” have their special meanings in physics. You must be
delusional to allow the special interpretation of these words to
describe reality. This is physics and not some bible interpretation
class that we are discussing. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Gravity and acceleration are equivalent because for any local
measurement, one can not determine which is which. General relativity
says gravitational acceleration and kinematic acceleration are
equivalent for local measurements.
|
It depends on what you mean by General Relativity. As far as I am
concerned, General Relativity is the set of the Einstein field
equations. In your terminology of General Relativity, do you mean one
of the interpretations to these field equations?
| Quote: |
Gravity and acceleration are not
equal because one can separate them with nonlocal measurements.
|
Thus, it fails the principle of equivalence. That is unless you
liberally interpret the principle of equivalence into whatever your
own fantasy is. <shrug>
| Quote: |
In that famous elevator of Einstein's, one can't tell the
difference between gravity and acceleration from a measurement made
only within the elevator.
|
Yes, Galileo had already pointed that out almost 300 years before
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did his claim.
<shrug>
| Quote: |
However, lets examine the case of nonlocal measurements. If a
window were open on the floor of the elevator, and one had a good
telescope, one may see a planet by the reflected light of the sun.
This is a nonlocal measurement. one may see objects orbiting the
planet, some at distances comparable to the distance between planet
and elevator. One measures the relative acceleration of planet and
orbiting bodies relative to the elevator, one looks at the tidal bulge
of the planets oceans due to the heavier orbiting bodies. One may even
send out a projectile from the elevator to the planet, with a
Cavendish type apparatus to determine the precise mass of the body.
All of these are nonlocal measurements. With this extra data,
you go "who, this is a heavy planet. My apparent weight comes from the
planet. Because it comes from a large mass like this planet, I will
call it gravity not acceleration.
|
One may try to put words in my mouth, but I remain my ground of the
principle of relativity as Galileo had described it that allowed
Newton to formulate the law of gravity.
| Quote: |
Kepler's Laws were determined with nonlocal measurements. It
would be impossible to determine the planets orbited the sun in
Keplerian orbits without taking looking across the solar system at the
distant planets and the sun.
|
Yes, this is so obvious. <shrug>
That is why “Enwurf” went nowhere. It was the cooperation of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar and his more capable
classmate Grossman. It was heavily indulged in coordinate
transformation where the usage of the local coordinate did not go
anywhere. <shrug>
The field equations agree with Newton. In order to understand
gravitation, you must observe how an object behaves under the
gravitational influence and not like what Grossmann and Einstein did
by imagining themselves in free fall. As Professor Roberts had
pointed out, free falling would only intercept the ground in a tragic
end. <shrug> Some self-proclaimed wise guy would claim in-orbit does
not achieve that tragedy in the near future. However, if one is
allowed to take time into eons, Professor Roberts’ claim certainly
comes true. <shrug>
| Quote: |
The tides are a nonlocal phenomenon. It
would be impossible to tell the tides were caused by the moon unless
one looked at the moon and correlated its rise times with the cycle of
the tides.
|
Tides are more complex than you can imagine. <shrug>
| Quote: |
The determination of which is gravity and which is
acceleration is, and was even before Einstein, a matter of nonlocal
measurements.
|
This determination was done long ago by Galileo. He discovered there
is no difference between gravity and acceleration. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Even Newton would probably agree.
|
Of course, Newton did. How else would the law of gravity ever come
about?
| Quote: |
One specific type of nonlocal measurement, the measurement of
tidal force, makes it especially clear.
|
Now, we are back to tidal force which is more complicated than you are
describing. <shrug>
| Quote: |
If the reference frame is
accelerating, there is no tidal force.
|
There is no special frame of reference allowed by Special Relativity.
Remember?
| Quote: |
By tidal force I mean
differential weight, not just the earth-moon-sun tides.
|
Yes, even tidal force can be subject to many different
interpretations. <shrug>
| Quote: |
If the elevator is very big, bigger than the planet, with water
on the floor, the surface of the water will be flat.
|
This is called common sense and should not be construed as super
intelligent deduction. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Acceleration of a
reference frame doesn't cause tides, since all measuring instruments
in the reference frame have to be accelerated equally.
|
As I said, the tidal force is more complicated than you can imagine.
<shrug>
| Quote: |
However, the
floor of the elevator may be larger than the planet. The edge of the
elevator far from the planet edge will show a lower tide than the
middle of the elevator. Water will bunch up near the center of the
elevator. This is a type of tide in the general sense. This would
indicate gravity.
|
So, your 2-cents is finally over. Thank ____ (**) for that.
** ____ allows you to fill in the blank to indicate whatever your
favorite god is at this moment.
The bottom line is that gravity is not acceleration under General
Relativity. This, of course, is a gross violation of the principle of
equivalence. Gravity manifests acceleration as well as time dilation
while non-gravitational acceleration has been observed to not manifest
any time dilation. This does not bode well for Special Relativity to
resolve the twin’s paradox in case if your inquisitive mind has not
figured out yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 1, 6:45 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
| Quote: |
Well, it usually does differ. When I took high school geometry,
they told me that two triangles were equivalent if all three angles
were the same. However, that didn't make them equal.
|
It sounds like you are confused with the words:
** Equivalent
** Equilateral.
| Quote: |
The triangles
were congruent if all three angles and all corresponding sides were
equal. However, two triangles were equal only if all three angles were
equal, all three sides were equal, and all corresponding sides were on
top of each other.
|
So, you have so much trouble to understand the very simple concept of
equality.
| Quote: |
Absolutely they are different words. If trade ten American
dollars for the equivalent number of Yen, then I can buy fish in
Japan.
|
Now, you are a currency expert.
| Quote: |
However, there is no amount of Yen that can equal ten American
dollars.
|
You are very out of your mind with a statement like that one above.
You need to go back to early elementary school and brush up on what
equality means. <shrug>
| Quote: |
And lest I get Japanese angry at me,
|
No, I only hear laughter not anger.
| Quote: |
I have to say that 10
Yen can never equal the equivalent number of dollars.
|
Not now according to the traders of international currency. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Equal means equal.
|
Yes, that is true. However, you still need to take units into
account. <shrug>
| Quote: |
In Weight Watchers, 10 small oranges is equivalent to 10 small
apples.
|
Well, it depends on the sub-species of the oranges and the apples.
| Quote: |
Oranges do not equal apples, however.
|
That is correct, and this is common sense. <shrug> You can even tell
a difference between when you just ate an orange versus an apple. I
hope. <shrug>
| Quote: |
However, the book uses
the word equivalent.
|
Which book is saying an orange is the same as an apple? You need to
toss it into the recycle bin and hope the incarnation of the recycled
material would represent ideas more intelligent.
| Quote: |
The common understanding is that equivalent doesn't mean equal.
|
It depends on a great deal of interpretation. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Only a lawyer would make the two words equal, when they are only
equivalent in some situations.
|
Well, it certainly allows politics to meddle with physics, does it
not? Special politically correct ideology can be liberally
interpreted to equate to something that is good while not politically
favored ideology can be interpreted to hell. And this, of course, is
called democracy at its best. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Daniel Needles
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
What may help is the assumption that we are a static point in space
time. We experience the passage of time so in some crude sense
velocity d/t better describes us. An example of this is to close your
eyes on a plane which is going 600 mph relative to the earth, you feel
like you are stationary. What we do feel is acceleration or a change
in velocity. Given this, the curve of space/time by definition is
acceleration or a change in velocity. If we were stationary you would
be correct and gravity and velocity would not equal. However since
outside our perspective we are not stationary and we feel the
subjective passage of time then "moving" over one of these curves will
feel like acceleration to us. Make sense?
On Jun 29, 12:41 pm, Vakium <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Too easy they gets away with not answering the question they dont
like !!!
Relativity's is based on the equivalence of gravity and acceleration
So when you say acceleration you say gravity, and when you say
acceleration you say gravity.
But subsequently relativity results in contradicting own foundations,
namely that gravity is not acceleration and acceleration is not
gravity.
What is going on here? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 2, 1:58 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 6:45 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
Well, it usually does differ. When I took high school geometry,
they told me that two triangles were equivalent if all three angles
were the same. However, that didn't make them equal.
It sounds like you are confused with the words:
** Equivalent
** Equilateral.
I did make a mistake, but not that. I used the word "equivalent" |
when I should have said "similar." Ratios are equivalent if the
quotient between the two ratios is the same. The ratio between
corresponding sides of two similar triangles are equivalent.
No, I know I didn't mean equilateral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 2, 1:41 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 6:36 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:21 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
False. It is true that gravity is not acceleration, but that does not
"contradict" or "undermine" the foundations of GR. Equivalence is not
equality.
So, when did you become a lawyer? I thought you are a professor of
physics at IIT associated with the Fermi Lab?
This isn't law, this is reality. If you don't use words precisely,
you can't describe physical reality precisely.
So, you are advocating there is a difference between equivalence and
equality under the laws of physics. So, the words “contradict” and
“undermine” have their special meanings in physics. You must be
delusional to allow the special interpretation of these words to
describe reality. This is physics and not some bible interpretation
class that we are discussing. <shrug
Gravity and acceleration are equivalent because for any local
measurement, one can not determine which is which. General relativity
says gravitational acceleration and kinematic acceleration are
equivalent for local measurements.
It depends on what you mean by General Relativity. As far as I am
concerned, General Relativity is the set of the Einstein field
equations. In your terminology of General Relativity, do you mean one
of the interpretations to these field equations?
Gravity and acceleration are not
equal because one can separate them with nonlocal measurements.
Thus, it fails the principle of equivalence. That is unless you
liberally interpret the principle of equivalence into whatever your
own fantasy is. <shrug
Einstein's theory includes only the weak law of equivalence. |
Gravity and acceleration are only equivalent for local measurements.
Einstein only used the weak law of equivalence. Your are referring to
a strong principle of equivalence, where gravity and acceleration are
equivalent for all measurements under all conditions. Since he didn't
think the strong law of equivalence is true, you can't say he
contradicted himself by stating it.
Could you find a quote from Einstein where he said that gravity
and acceleration were equivalent for ALL measurements? I mean, you
studied it, right?
| Quote: |
In that famous elevator of Einstein's, one can't tell the
difference between gravity and acceleration from a measurement made
only within the elevator.
Yes, Galileo had already pointed that out almost 300 years before
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did his claim.
shrug
Kubee Wublee, the jerk, the crank, and the liar made a false claim |
that Einstein contradicted himself.
| Quote: |
Kepler's Laws were determined with nonlocal measurements. It
would be impossible to determine the planets orbited the sun in
Keplerian orbits without taking looking across the solar system at the
distant planets and the sun.
Yes, this is so obvious. <shrug
So according to your logic, Galileo contradicted himself.
The field equations agree with Newton.
Horse crap. |
| Quote: |
In order to understand
gravitation, you must observe how an object behaves under the
gravitational influence and not like what Grossmann and Einstein did
by imagining themselves in free fall. As Professor Roberts had
pointed out, free falling would only intercept the ground in a tragic
end.
You never heard of an orbit? You should watch the NASA channel |
when astronauts from the International space station are talking to
the little kiddies.
| Quote: |
shrug> Some self-proclaimed wise guy would claim in-orbit does
not achieve that tragedy in the near future. However, if one is
allowed to take time into eons, Professor Roberts’ claim certainly
comes true. <shrug
Local refers to time too, by the way. The experiments have to |
be done within a finite time span, as well as within a small volume of
space. The postulate of local equivalence doesn't mean forever. "Eons"
isn't local.
If there was no atmosphere, there would be no friction. Then the
orbit would be stable for maybe billions of years. In any case, what
would be the point? Gravity and acceleration will still be locally
equivalent.
| Quote: |
The tides are a nonlocal phenomenon. It
would be impossible to tell the tides were caused by the moon unless
one looked at the moon and correlated its rise times with the cycle of
the tides.
Tides are more complex than you can imagine. <shrug
I know the topography influences the tides, putting delays and |
sometimes advances between high tide and the high/low position of the
moon/sun. This is what you meant by "complicated." There is no simple
relationship between high tide and moon position.
It doesn't change my statement, because the word "correlate" is
very general. Unless the ancient scientists correlated the position of
the moon and sun with the high and low tide, whatever that correlation
turned out to be, they would not have known that the tides came from
the moon and sun. An ancient scientist noticed the tide in his area
came a certain number of hours before or after moon rise and moon set.
Unless they looked at the moon, which is a nonlocal measurement, they
would not have known whether it was the moon causing the tide.
| Quote: |
One specific type of nonlocal measurement, the measurement of
tidal force, makes it especially clear.
Now, we are back to tidal force which is more complicated than you are
describing. <shrug
I know it is complicated. However complicated it is, it is not a |
local measurement. It is effected by the general shape of the earth,
and the weight and distance of the heavenly bodies. However, in a
local measurement these things don't matter at all. Inside a small
elevator, one couldn't tell from the weight what was causing the
change in weight. So one couldn't tell it was a tide. Over the entire
earth, one could tell what a tide is. That is nonlocal.
| Quote: |
If the reference frame is
accelerating, there is no tidal force.
There is no special frame of reference allowed by Special Relativity.
This is a lie.
Remember?
There is no special inertial frame. There are accelerated |
frames, which are different from inertial frames. The only frames of
reference discussed by Einstein are inertial frames. He did discuss
frames where the measuring instruments were accelerated in circular
motion.
| Quote: |
By tidal force I mean
differential weight, not just the earth-moon-sun tides.
Yes, even tidal force can be subject to many different
interpretations. <shrug
Do these "interpretations" contradict themselves? No?
If the elevator is very big, bigger than the planet, with water
on the floor, the surface of the water will be flat.
This is called common sense and should not be construed as super
intelligent deduction. <shrug
I was trying to describe a "nonlocal measurement." Obviously, you |
don't have enough common sense to know what "nonlocal" means.
| Quote: |
Acceleration of a
reference frame doesn't cause tides, since all measuring instruments
in the reference frame have to be accelerated equally.
As I said, the tidal force is more complicated than you can imagine.
shrug
And you are more stupid than I imagined. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 3, 1:35 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 2, 1:41 am, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Thus, it fails the principle of equivalence. That is unless you
liberally interpret the principle of equivalence into whatever your
own fantasy is. <shrug
Einstein's theory includes only the weak law of equivalence.
Gravity and acceleration are only equivalent for local measurements.
Einstein only used the weak law of equivalence. Your are referring to
a strong principle of equivalence, where gravity and acceleration are
equivalent for all measurements under all conditions. Since he didn't
think the strong law of equivalence is true, you can't say he
contradicted himself by stating it.
|
I am referring to the principle of equivalence. It was already
identified by Galileo almost 400 years ago. I do not advocate many
flavors of the principle of equivalence to cover every square
millimeter of your *ss. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Could you find a quote from Einstein where he said that gravity
and acceleration were equivalent for ALL measurements? I mean, you
studied it, right?
|
Right, have you not known that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after he
finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity? Some people would
call that a great feat in ingenuity in which plagiarism is rightfully
justified, but some just identify it as plagiarism. <PERIOD>
| Quote: |
Yes, Galileo had already pointed that out almost 300 years before
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did his claim.
shrug
Kubee Wublee, the jerk, the crank, and the liar made a false claim
that Einstein contradicted himself.
|
What false claim is that?
I see. The truth hurts. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar.
| Quote: |
Kepler's Laws were determined with nonlocal measurements. It
would be impossible to determine the planets orbited the sun in
Keplerian orbits without taking looking across the solar system at the
distant planets and the sun.
Yes, this is so obvious. <shrug
So according to your logic, Galileo contradicted himself.
|
Where did I say that Galileo contradicted himself? Just because
Galileo had already identified the principles of relativity and
equivalence almost 300 years before your idol, Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar, you don’t have to throw sh*t around like
that.
| Quote: |
The field equations agree with Newton.
Horse crap.
|
I meant the field equations are fudged to agree with Newton in
everyday circumstances. <shrug>
| Quote: |
In order to understand
gravitation, you must observe how an object behaves under the
gravitational influence and not like what Grossmann and Einstein did
by imagining themselves in free fall. As Professor Roberts had
pointed out, free falling would only intercept the ground in a tragic
end.
You never heard of an orbit?
|
Yes, I have. <shrug>
| Quote: |
You should watch the NASA channel
when astronauts from the International space station are talking to
the little kiddies.
|
Which episode is that?
| Quote: |
shrug> Some self-proclaimed wise guy would claim in-orbit does
not achieve that tragedy in the near future. However, if one is
allowed to take time into eons, Professor Roberts’ claim certainly
comes true. <shrug
Local refers to time too, by the way. The experiments have to
be done within a finite time span, as well as within a small volume of
space. The postulate of local equivalence doesn't mean forever. "Eons"
isn't local.
|
It is more excuse to bastardize the principle of equivalence to
justify your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as
a genius. <shrug>
In fact, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never
understood Galileo before trying to understand the Newtonian law of
gravity. That is why after so many years finally he understood the
Newtonian law of gravity, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar suddenly proclaimed that he discovered the principle of
equivalence. <shrug>
| Quote: |
If there was no atmosphere, there would be no friction.
|
This is a wrong statement in general. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Then the
orbit would be stable for maybe billions of years.
|
Since you are no God, you have no right to define how long an eon is.
<shrug>
| Quote: |
In any case, what
would be the point? Gravity and acceleration will still be locally
equivalent.
|
Gravity and acceleration is equivalence only under Galileo but not in
general under GR because of GR mandates gravity to manifest the time
dilation stuff. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Tides are more complex than you can imagine. <shrug
I know the topography influences the tides, putting delays and
sometimes advances between high tide and the high/low position of the
moon/sun. This is what you meant by "complicated." There is no simple
relationship between high tide and moon position.
|
<shrug>
| Quote: |
It doesn't change my statement, because the word "correlate" is
very general. Unless the ancient scientists correlated the position of
the moon and sun with the high and low tide, whatever that correlation
turned out to be, they would not have known that the tides came from
the moon and sun. An ancient scientist noticed the tide in his area
came a certain number of hours before or after moon rise and moon set.
Unless they looked at the moon, which is a nonlocal measurement, they
would not have known whether it was the moon causing the tide.
|
<shrug>
| Quote: |
Now, we are back to tidal force which is more complicated than you are
describing. <shrug
I know it is complicated. However complicated it is, it is not a
local measurement. It is effected by the general shape of the earth,
and the weight and distance of the heavenly bodies. However, in a
local measurement these things don't matter at all. Inside a small
elevator, one couldn't tell from the weight what was causing the
change in weight. So one couldn't tell it was a tide. Over the entire
earth, one could tell what a tide is. That is nonlocal.
|
<shrug>
| Quote: |
There is no special frame of reference allowed by Special Relativity.
This is a lie.
|
Well, you don’t understand Special Relativity. You don’t understand
the 400-year-old principle of relativity. <shrug>
| Quote: |
Remember?
There is no special inertial frame. There are accelerated
frames, which are different from inertial frames. The only frames of
reference discussed by Einstein are inertial frames. He did discuss
frames where the measuring instruments were accelerated in circular
motion.
|
There are no special frames of references according to SR and GR.
<shrug>
| Quote: |
Yes, even tidal force can be subject to many different
interpretations. <shrug
Do these "interpretations" contradict themselves? No?
|
I find them rather to be out-of-topic. <shrug>
| Quote: |
This is called common sense and should not be construed as super
intelligent deduction. <shrug
I was trying to describe a "nonlocal measurement." Obviously, you
don't have enough common sense to know what "nonlocal" means.
|
<shrug>
| Quote: |
As I said, the tidal force is more complicated than you can imagine.
shrug
And you are more stupid than I imagined.
|
I don’t think that is how you profile me because you keep coming back
to get your *ss whipped by me. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
On Jul 3, 10:59 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I am referring to the principle of equivalence. It was already
identified by Galileo almost 400 years ago. I do not advocate many
flavors of the principle of equivalence to cover every square
millimeter of your *ss. <shrug
But you advocate aether which leads to stupidity. <shrug
|
On the contrary, I find Aether-denying to be so absurd. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4cc19a3-370a-42c7-a3f8-9e1b2cf3ac64@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 1:35 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 2, 1:41 am, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Thus, it fails the principle of equivalence. That is unless you
liberally interpret the principle of equivalence into whatever your
own fantasy is. <shrug
Einstein's theory includes only the weak law of equivalence.
Gravity and acceleration are only equivalent for local measurements.
Einstein only used the weak law of equivalence. Your are referring to
a strong principle of equivalence, where gravity and acceleration are
equivalent for all measurements under all conditions. Since he didn't
think the strong law of equivalence is true, you can't say he
contradicted himself by stating it.
|
I am referring to the principle of equivalence. It was already
identified by Galileo almost 400 years ago. I do not advocate many
flavors of the principle of equivalence to cover every square
millimeter of your *ss. <shrug>
==========================================
But you advocate aether which leads to stupidity. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!! |
|
|
Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
Pxkbk.63775$Kb.19817@newsfe29.ams2
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f89a1ca-9434-480b-a3e7-88ed44ec0e64@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 10:59 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I am referring to the principle of equivalence. It was already
identified by Galileo almost 400 years ago. I do not advocate many
flavors of the principle of equivalence to cover every square
millimeter of your *ss. <shrug
But you advocate aether which leads to stupidity. <shrug
On the contrary, I find Aether-denying to be so absurd. <shrug
You are a nitwit, a plagiarist and a liar.
|
Two retired engineers having a Super Crackpot Fight. Succulent!
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
