🚀 go-pugleaf

NoEinstein wrote:

> On Feb 6, 6:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Pentcho V.:  Stephen Hawking writes and speaks in an edifying
> manner (even via machine).  But he himself admits to being poor at
> visualizing moving spatial systems "relative" to one another.
> Einstein liked to "edify", too.  He did so by explaining time and
> motion examples in such minute and boring detail, that he insulted
> most engineers and architects (like myself) who have NO problem
> visualizing 3-D anything!
> 
> The first huge blunder Einstein made was to insist that: �All
> 'observers' of events should record the same data." 

You should actually read some history and some physics. This
is not what was said.  In fact, the whole point is that this
is not true.





  Einstein DECLARED
> the later, NOT Mother Nature!  Any surveyor used to working with
> spatial problems has little problem calculating when events occur.
> But because having things be seen� �the same�, was a SIMPLIFICATION of
> problems already way over the heads of non engineers and architects,
> dumb scientists just embraced that notion�  Now, we have the dregs of
> mentality holding back World Progress��just to protect their GD egos,
> and continue the space-time nonsense!
> 
> Pentcho is certainly more right than wrong.  In a �Nutshell� *** He
> agrees that Albert Einstein is WRONG. ***  The latter is more than
> those in academia can rise to understand.  Isn�t it time to quit
> playing nice, and to call �an ace and ace and a spade a spade�?  Those
> who defend Einstein are to be cursed and damned!!  �� NoEinstein ��
> 
Except that you have shown nothing wrong with Einstein's work.
Learn some physics.



> 
>>On Feb 6, 1:58 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 5, 7:39 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Feb 5, 3:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 5, 2:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Michelson-Morley
>>>>>>experiment is consistent with both the hypothesis that the speed of
>>>>>>light is independent of the speed of the light source and the
>>>>>>hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
>>>>>>light source (that is, we ignore the fact that the former consistency
>>>>>>was achieved by introducing ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, starting with
>>>>>>FitzGerald's length contraction). Even this quite liberal assumption
>>>>>>does not make Einsteiniana's teaching less fraudulent:
>>
>>>>>>http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/einsteins_special_relativity
>>>>>>Paul A. Heckert: "Rather than trying to understand why the Michelson-
>>>>>>Morley experiment didn't work, Einstein effectively took the result as
>>>>>>his starting point. He made the basic assumption that the speed of
>>>>>>light is a fundamental constant in the universe and that all observers
>>>>>>in any reference frame that is not accelerating will measure the same
>>>>>>value for the speed of light. There is however historical controversy
>>>>>>as to how much Einstein was actually influenced by the Michelson-
>>>>>>Morley experiment. He might have made this assumption, even if the
>>>>>>experiment had not been performed. In either case, his assumption that
>>>>>>any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same
>>>>>>value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if
>>>>>>the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at
>>>>>>different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must
>>>>>>change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this
>>>>>>assumption."
>>
>>>>>I don't know what you find fraudulent.
>>
>>>>Then see how Stephen Hawking uses the Michelson-Morley experiment in
>>>>his attempt to disprove the fact that the speed of light "varies with
>>>>position" (Einstein's words) in a gravitational field:
>>
>>>>http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/text/extplaydice.htm
>>>>Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
>>>>in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
>>>>that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
>>>>He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
>>>>hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
>>>>although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
>>>>forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
>>>>in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
>>>>and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
>>>>cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
>>>>back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
>>>>Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
>>>>travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
>>>>second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
>>>>light, and make it fall back."
>>
>>>>You find nothing fraudulent again?
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela...
>>Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
>>the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
>>and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
>>its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
>>failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
>>through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
>>was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
>>Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
>>traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
>>moving."
>>
>>No fraud again? Is Stephen Hawking one of the "later writers" referred
>>to in the quotation below:
>>
>>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
>>John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
>>evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
>>universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
>>relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
>>WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
>>POSTULATE."
>>
>>Pentcho Valev
>>pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
>