🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 2, 11:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:39 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
> > Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> > The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> > living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> > and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> > quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> > gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> > is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> > Louis Savain
>
> > Rebel Science News: http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>
> Einsteiniana wastes so much money that sometimes even the bosses get
> embarrassed:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/04/28/ecfgravb28.xml
> "Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe
> began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90
> years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was
> blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on
> a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year.
> The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University,
> conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created
> inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions
> in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer
> Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the
> persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its
> gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have
> been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from
> Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student -
> and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for
> Einstein's theory was meagre - just two tests, with 10 per cent
> precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with
> precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to
> have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in
> Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected
> result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected
> result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very
> challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein:
> There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high
> burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival
> theory. "So the most exciting - if un-alluring - outcome of Gravity
> Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum
> of money to repeat it."

Now that Einsteiniana is bringing less and less money the criminals
are trying to revitilize Clausiusiana:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Events/The_Clock_and_the_Quantum/The_Clock_and_the_Quantum:_Time_in_Quantum_Foundations/

but I don't think the old pre-Einsteinian money-spinner will start
working again:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com