🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 8, 5:39 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Folks: Doug is a persona non grata to science, and to me in
particular.  :-}~ - - - !  NE