Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 19th, 2019 #21
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
I can't understand WHY you would agree in principal that length contraction and mass increase and time dilation, SEEM to be absurd, YET you still insist that space travel must use these theories to get anywhere?
I'm not saying that space travel must use those particular theories. A different theory with a better causal explanation may work just as well or better. What I am saying is that I have been told and have read, from multiple sources going back decades, that space navigation using only classical physics does not work, but that it does work using relativity theory. That does not make relativity theory correct; it simply means that classical physics is incomplete. The salient point here is that

A false theory can yield correct results, at least to a certain degree of precision.

For example, the theory of epicycles is a false theory, yet it yielded results that were correct to the degree of precision needed for navigation.

Quote:
Hell, even the math of SR is not hard.
I'm not saying that the math of SR is hard; I'm saying that the math of going to, say, Pluto, is hard. Do you know all the forces, accelerations, and delta-vee's that were required to send New Horizons to Pluto? I certainly don't. I don't have access to the equations and values used to compute those quantities, and neither do you. I only know that I have informed by multiple sources that relativity theory was used. Were they telling the truth? Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't.

Your argument seems to be:
Relativity is easily understood to be wrong.
It is claimed that space travel is accomplished using relativity theory.
Therefore, those claims are easily understood to be wrong.

This is the Fallacy of Composition, inferring that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. For example, chess is a very simple game to understand, but that does not make it a simple game to play. I understand how to play chess, but I cannot beat an experienced player. I understand how to play the piano, but I cannot play well enough to give a performance that anyone would want to listen to.

So, if you want to convince me, you will have to convince me that all the calculations used in navigating, say, New Horizons, use classical physics exclusively. I'm certainly open to that, but you won't convince me merely by pointing out the absurdities of the theory as a causal explanation, but only by pointing out that it wasn't actually used.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #22
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

And here is an image I saved from an approved modern physics website, verifying that light does not go in straight lines in space, ( according to Einstein) as I said in the last post. Therefore ALL astronomical observations regarding distances calculated, and ALSO calculated MASS of other galaxies, WILL BE WRONG.
We cant tell the distances, as the paths traveled by light can be a zig zag coming from any direction! (curving around a great many galaxies) So we cant calculate the Mass from the apparent motions, unless we take into consideration all the curving and bending. But we never do that in Astronomy. The measurements are either direct visual measures, or radio telescope signals which ASSUME direct line of sight. And from our observation position, we always measure the incoming light, radio signal as straight trajectory of the LAST segment of the zig zag as shown below. (not from the average of all the bends!) And its NOT subtle bending either! a black hole will absorb ALL the light we should have seen, from a galaxy behind it, so there could be a bloody big galaxy we have not seen, full of earth like planets! (unfortunately the Black Hole is just another imaginary Math construct, based on other erroneous theories)

Last edited by Mark Elin; December 19th, 2019 at 01:34 AM.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #23
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
And here is an image I saved from an approved modern physics website, verifying that light does not go in straight lines in space, ( according to Einstein) as I said in the last post. Therefore ALL astronomical observations regarding distances calculated, and ALSO calculated MASS of other galaxies, WILL BE WRONG.
We cant tell the distances, as the paths traveled by light can be a zig zag coming from any direction! (curving around a great many galaxies) So we cant calculate the Mass from the apparent motions, unless we take into consideration all the curving and bending. But we never do that in Astronomy. The measurements are either direct visual measures, or radio telescope signals which ASSUME direct line of sight. And from our observation position, we always measure the incoming light, radio signal as straight trajectory of the LAST segment of the zig zag as shown below. (not from the average of all the bends!) And its NOT subtle bending either! a black hole will absorb ALL the light we should have seen, from a galaxy behind it, so there could be a bloody big galaxy we have not seen, full of earth like planets! (unfortunately the Black Hole is just another imaginary Math construct, based on other erroneous theories)
Is there anyone here with a degree in Physics who can answer that? Because I don't know the answer. But, in the absence of an expert, I'm going to take a guess at what I think the answer might be.

The measurements of galaxies, etc. are not exact but are only approximate numbers, for which classical physics is adequate. But navigating to another planet requires such high precision that classical physics is not adequate, and a more accurate theory is required.

There, I gave a simple answer that anyone can understand, and one that makes perfect sense.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #24
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post
I'm not saying that space travel must use those particular theories. A different theory with a better causal explanation may work just as well or better. What I am saying is that I have been told and have read, from multiple sources going back decades, that space navigation using only classical physics does not work, but that it does work using relativity theory. That does not make relativity theory correct; it simply means that classical physics is incomplete. The salient point here is that

A false theory can yield correct results, at least to a certain degree of precision.

For example, the theory of epicycles is a false theory, yet it yielded results that were correct to the degree of precision needed for navigation.



I'm not saying that the math of SR is hard; I'm saying that the math of going to, say, Pluto, is hard. Do you know all the forces, accelerations, and delta-vee's that were required to send New Horizons to Pluto? I certainly don't. I don't have access to the equations and values used to compute those quantities, and neither do you. I only know that I have informed by multiple sources that relativity theory was used. Were they telling the truth? Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't.

Your argument seems to be:
Relativity is easily understood to be wrong.
It is claimed that space travel is accomplished using relativity theory.
Therefore, those claims are easily understood to be wrong.

This is the Fallacy of Composition, inferring that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. For example, chess is a very simple game to understand, but that does not make it a simple game to play. I understand how to play chess, but I cannot beat an experienced player. I understand how to play the piano, but I cannot play well enough to give a performance that anyone would want to listen to.

So, if you want to convince me, you will have to convince me that all the calculations used in navigating, say, New Horizons, use classical physics exclusively. I'm certainly open to that, but you won't convince me merely by pointing out the absurdities of the theory as a causal explanation, but only by pointing out that it wasn't actually used.
Well, convincing you that they are lying about using any of Einsteins math to calculate the trajectory of a deep space probe will be futile.
Its essentially a non falsifiable claim that you make. (NASA makes)
No one has published the exact math used by NASA, so there is nothing to go by except their statement. As I don't believe every word that comes from NASA, due to their obvious coverups over the Apollo fiasco, ans subsequent statements, such as, "if we are ever going to sen humans to MARS or the moon, we need to shield the Orion from the deadly Van Allen radiation belts". Statement made decades AFTER they claimed to already have sent 5 successful missions through those belts. (or around the belts as later also claimed)
So I understand that un-falsifability is also a logical error in an argument.

What you seem to be content with is a claim that Government and their agents cant be trusted (for good reason) , but one of their biggest agents, NASA can be. And this is based on a theory of Einstein, coincidentally a Jew, in which the equations are pure rubbish, but as luck would have it, the results just happen to be that 0.1% more accurate than rational Physics using verifiable and logical Math?
And the theory is as sensible as claiming that the moon dances across the night sky because tiny invisible fairies carry it, and to prove it, Ill predict that they will do it again most nights?
No, basing your faith in NASA is not the scientific approach to deciding if Einstein is correct.
And if his theories can be exposed as rubbish, we have no business claiming to be using them. And we don't, apart from NASA and other Official Govt agencies, it sis CLAIMED.

We need to decide if there is any chance that there is any value in Einsteins hypothesis, in the equations and in the conclusions, and this has nothing to do with what NASA claims.
They did not pronounce that Einstein's special relativity was correct, by asking NASA, back in 1905 when they published his paper, We should go by what the claims in his paper say, and not get confused by a assortment of what more recent and possibly corrupted official agencies claim.

NASA and NIST and Popular Mechanics and the Govt all claim that building 7 just fell down from office fires, which is as believable as my moon and fairy story.

I reject your insistence to abide by the claims of this govt agency that does have an agenda, is driven by money and is deeply involved in world politics.

The decision of whether SR is correct or just a big mistake lies solely with the content of the 1905 paper, nowhere else.

I'm only interested in deciding the validity of the claims of the theory as expressed in that paper. Not in speculation about what some big corporation is doing and saying.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #25
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default



Funny, but all statement are correct in this clip.

Last edited by Mark Elin; December 19th, 2019 at 02:50 AM.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #26
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

You could have just said that navigating to planets in our solar system is within the capabilities of regular classical physics, but going to the next nearest planet, in the next system needs more accuracy..
However they don't have two or more different sets of math to calculate this stuff. One for rough calculations, maybe used by Tesla's Space-x, and a better set of equations used by NASA.
I would say that going further requires the SAME classical math, but more data about where the planets all will be far into the future, and more info about how the gravity of all those planets are going to affect our space probe. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss the truthfulness of Special Relativity by endless referrals to NASA's space programs.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #27
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

And NASA will surely tell you emphatically that the Holocaust is 100% true.
What.. sometimes they lie, and sometimes they can be trusted above your own inner guide as to what rings true and what is BS? Even when you have the proof that the SR theory is utter BS, you still are going with the Holocaust NASA guys?
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #28
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
Statement made decades AFTER they claimed to already have sent 5 [sic, nine manned missions passed through the belts, six of which landed] successful missions through those belts. (or around the belts as later also claimed)
Oh, so you're a moon hoaxer. That explains a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
The decision of whether SR is correct or just a big mistake lies solely with the content of the 1905 paper, nowhere else.
You mean it depends only on thinking about it, not on real-world applications. But I thought science has to be based on observation and experimentation, not merely thought experiments.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #29
Hugh Akston
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 553
Default

This is not a subject (moon hoax theory) that ranks high on things that interest me. But let's suppose that the entire moon landing was a hoax. If so, was head of the moon project - former SS Major and Nazi rocket scientist Wernher von Braun - a willing participant in the fraud? Or was just his name used and nothing else? But if that was the case, why use him at all, considering the stigma attached to anyone connected to the Third Reich? Why not just use some other rocket scientist's name to perpetuate the fraud? You know, like some American rocket scientist - of which there were plenty. For if the whole project was a fraud, there was no need to use a former Nazi - especially so soon after the end of World War II.

Secondly, if the moon project was entirely a hoax, then does that also apply to the Space Race itself? In other words, was a similar hoax being perpetuated thousands of miles away in the USSR with their alleged efforts to reach the moon?

But, again, let's say the whole moon project was a hoax. That we didn't have the technical know-how to reach the moon - not then or now. But if that were the case...

Then was this photo of a Russian probe on the surface of Venus (a planet more difficult to reach than the moon) also a product of clever propaganda intermixed with photos of a studio set mimicking the surface of what actually was a fake Venus?



And if the Russian Venera 13 photos were all fakes - as well as the entire Venus landing, then that implies that these photos were also fakes...



Is this alleged photo on the surface of Mars (below) - a place even more difficult to reach than either the moon or Venus - actually just a desert scene taken in the wastelands of the Kalahari Desert of Namibia?



Finally, is America itself just a cleverly conceived fake? After all, I've never actually seen Washington DC - just photos and videos of some (faked?) government buildings. I've also never been to China, and maybe that too has been faked - ala George Orwell's 1984 novel in which foreign enemies are created by the State to keep the masses in perpetual fear. In fact, maybe the Earth itself isn't what we've been taught to believe. And maybe my neighbors aren't really who they say they are. Could it all be fake? Everything?

Everything???
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #30
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

Don't be a dick head, you began so well, don't fall into stupidity.
There is a lot of exceptionally weird facts surrounding the whole Apollo project, none of which have reasonable solutions.
There IS a possibility that its faked.
I don't want to depart too far from Special Relativity here, I should not have brought up unrelated subjects.

Your second remark is still not following the scientific principal even thought you think it is.
ALL we possess as humans as a tool for figuring out how thing work, IS OUR THOUGHTS.
ALL experimental results must be INTERPRETED by the thinking of humans.
Ive already told you this. And there are ALWAYS more than ONE possible interpretation, so we can ONLY use our THINKING or rationality to decide on the correct INTERPRETATION.
So, please try to concentrate here, and stay on track.

Your comments about the theory of a moon hoax and this repeat of the false claim that experiments trump the explanation, are both false positions to take, they prevent further explorations of the truths of Physics.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #31
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

I'm not going into moon hoax evidence vs moon fact evidence here, that's another topic.
But briefly, I believe that Zionists are mostly either very powerful or fully control most of this words governments, and certainly specific agencies totally. (like the CIA, Mossad, MI5, and the Kremlin) They have their puppets running most countries, from Trump, Putin to Xi-JiPing, Merkil, ...etc) so with Education being on top of their list of ways to control the thinking of the masses, of course a scientific fraud CAN be perpetuated across apparently different governments and across different private corporations. They own them all. Leaders play the role of enemies when required, but they are all on the same page really.
Its NOT IMPOSSIBLE for it all to be faked.
You cant claim that this is totally inconceivable.
But further discussions in this topic should be continued in a new thread.
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #32
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

NASA’s explanation on how to calculate the speed from a bounced radar signal. (its wrong and unnecessarily complex)
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Nu...ice_radars.htm

But I have a better way. The exact correct answer can be found by directly taking the WAVE LENGTH of the radar and ADDING the DISTANCE traveled by the target object, over the same time period!
End of problem!
Radar can be 17mm /sec wavelength. That’s 61,200,000 Kilometers per Hour.
The cars speed is 100 KPH, so we expect to read 61,200,100 KPH return signal in our radar detector.
Lets do the math.
Let’s set the original radar wave speed as the benchmark, (17 mm per sec) and find the ratio between that and the reading expected.
61,200,100/61,200,000 =
1.000,001,633,986,928 (the car is going the radar speed times this factor)
So what would the factor be at 60kph?
61,200,060/61,200,000 = 1.000000980392157‬ (the cars is now going the radar speed times this factor.)
So to check that we have the correct factors, we can deduct the two factors and we should come up with the differential or 40. Which is directly related to our units, that is in KPH.
1.000,001,633,986,928 (100kph factor) minus 1.000000980392157 (the 60kph factor) = EXACTLY 40 . We have a 40 unit differential, (units are in KPH) which exactly matches the actual expected result or 100kph minus 60kph = 40 kph.
This formula works perfectly for any speed, any frequency (wavelength) of the Radar signal.
I simply add or subtract the two speeds of the radar and the vehicles speed to derive the exactly perfect answer! This is mind numbingly simple, and it’s totally rational and logical, to simply add the speed increase or decrease to the base speed.
In the NASA working above, they go into a weird irrational contortion to come up with the answer.
They make many errors of rational thought.
First, they expect a Frequency shift, when the radar frequency does not actually change at all!
All that changes is the RATE that each wave is received, because we are heading into or away from the wave, its just a simple additive or subtractive speed differential.
Frequency and wavelength are really EXACTLY the same measure, just in different units.
If I run at a fixed speed, and wave my arm at 10 cycles per second, then we have a 10 waves per sec frequency.
But we also can say that the distance between when my hand is vertical to the next time my hand is vertical AT THAT SET SPEED I’m running, will be some certain distance. As speed is distance x time, its clear that wave length is the same as the frequency, that are just 2 ways to measure the exact same thing.
So why when we want to know the speed differential of the car to he radar gun, do we need to work in frequency, when we have a more suitable measurement available, the wave LENGTH over TIME?
It’s because they (Einstein fans) need to work in the myth of the plank length, and also support the claim that radar signal can’t ever go faster than light.
NASA make another error when they explain that the photon bashes into the car as if it’s a ball of lead, and slows the car, and the car accelerates the photon, gaining Energy and momentum.
Meanwhile, in the next classroom, other Einstein professors will tell you that the original photon is destroyed on impact, and it’s a brand new photon created by the change of energy in the electrons in the matter, (Einstein’s photoelectric effect) So these two claims of the NASA professors and Einstein are contradicting each other here. As you can’t create more energy with the new photon AND also have the same energy imparted into the matter. When the photon strikes the target material, (assuming we go along with their stupid claim that the photon has mass) it does not GAIN energy, it LOOSES energy. As explained in any Physics text book on elastic collisions. Some energy is absorbed by the target, some in sound waves, frictional losses, etc, but the take away here is that IF the photon has “momentum”, (that is it has Mass), and it strikes an object, it does not depart with MORE energy.
This is physics 101. But here NASA is saying that it leaves with more energy! No, it may leave with more speed, but the energy remains the same. Take a bow any arrow, the potential energy is stored when the bow is drawn SLOWLY, then the arrow receives the exact same amount of energy, over a shorter time period, and its speed is increased. It does not gain energy!
If you drop a ball onto the earth, it does NOT GAIN ANY ENERGY from the massive earth which in Einstein’s world, can be considered to be striking a stationary ball! If the photon can gain energy from hitting and bouncing off the car, (contrary to Einstein’s other theory of the Photo electric effect)
then by the same process, a dropped ball would bounce higher and higher with every strike of the Earth!
Anyway, continue with NASA’s stupid way of explaining the radar……
They talk about the photon getting more energy, which that claim is an increase in FREQUENCY, which is wrong, because the rate of the wave creation has not been effected by the collision, only the INTENSITY of the photon. Intensity has NOTHING to do with wavelength or frequency!
(and its still wrong that a photon can gain anything from striking solid matter!)
Add energy to light you get more INTENSITY, like going from a 30 watt bulb to a 100 watt bulb, you are adding energy, but the frequency or wave length don’t change!
And you don’t think NASA are lying about anything?

This NASA explanation of simple Physics is utter BS.
Now Occam’s Razor hints that the simplest solution is usually the correct solution.
My simple and rational solution is 100% accurate, and its as simple as additive velocities.
I don’t need a math fudge called the Planck Length constant, or the errors of trying to say that a striking photon will slow my car!
I have stone chips in front of my car not photon damage!
 
Old December 20th, 2019 #33
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

I'll try to stay on the topic of special relativity here.

There are two questions to ask: (1) Is SR true? and (2) Is SR useful? They are not the same. Something may be useful even though it is not true, even in science. I have already given you the example of the theory of epicycles, which was extremely useful even though it ultimately proved false.

Another example is imaginary numbers. How can a negative number have a square root? Of course, numbers are in the realm of mathematics, not physics; nonetheless, simple logic would tell you that a negative number cannot have a square root. However, imaginary numbers proved to be very useful in understanding electrical circuits. They are used to measure something physical that is quite real, the impedance of an electrical circuit. And they were invented before a use was discovered for them.

Now back to the topic of SR. Is SR a correct, causal explanation of certain physical phenomena in the universe? Due to the absurdities of the theory, I would think not, but even of that I am not positive. Bizarre, absurd things can turn out to be true, as the following example will show.

When the first Europeans, Dutchmen, came to Burma, they spoke to the king and told him many marvelous things about Europe. The king believed everything they said until they told him that, in the Netherlands, it can get so cold that you can walk on water. At that point, the king told them that they were lying, that he was not so stupid to believe anything that foolish.

Now think about that for a moment. If you grew up in the tropics, the very idea of water getting so cold you could walk on it would sound so absurd that only a fool would believe such a thing, yet it is true. None of us has any experience traveling at speeds anywhere near the speed of light, so how could we know for certain what it is like?

Nonetheless, I will grant you that Einstein's theories are probably false as a causal explanation, and I have no argument with you there. So our only disagreement is about whether something false, even something totally fanciful, can later prove to have some use. So far, the closest thing to a comment on that is this:
Quote:
Yes, it's historical fact that earlier theories such as perfectly circular orbits which were useful, have later been replaced by better more accurate theories such as the elliptical orbits and precessions.
But such improvements in theories relate to the better observations of the motion of planets, THEN the description of such, followed by a mathematical description with equations that are tested against more observations.

There were at the time, a number of possible explanations that tried to account for the anomalies observed, and the “winning” explanation along with the development of the accompanying math was the elliptical orbits proposal.
In other words, you are saying that the observations came first, followed by better theories. But it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes a theory will come first, such as imaginary numbers, and then later a use will be found for it.

Are we getting any closer to addressing this issue?
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 20th, 2019 #34
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

We are skipping the issue. Making excuses.
What Theoretical Mathematics is able to dream up that later proves to be useful IN MATHEMATICS, has not bearing on the study of Physic, the metaphor leads to possibly wrong conclusions.

Please provide examples that are within the bounds of the study of Physics.

I repeat, that the scientific process always begins with an observation, a description, then a proposed explanation, followed with a way to test if the explanation fits under differing circumstances, in that order, for a good reason.

Physics that begins from the wrong end is "begging the question".



It's like imagining that there is a metal that is opposite to lead, and it floats on air.
Then describing how many electrons, protons and neutrons each atom must have, and then rushing off to the nearest Particle Accelerator for an observation of a track that one such theoretical atom might leave, which EXACTLY describes the pseudo science of Particle Physics. Another total fraud.

Comparing epicycle astronomy with modern elliptical understanding is NOT in the same boat as what Einstein is claiming in the slightest.

The step from one shape of orbit to a different shape orbit improved the calculations accuracy.

But Einsteins "improvement" of accuracy, actually destroys all past Physics totally!

The conclusions are NOT improvements, but a sweeping away of all known laws of Physics. This is a major claim, not an incremental step towards more accuracy!

And so this is why the theory MUST NOT be a wrong theory that just happens by total random chance to have stumbled on the exact right math to "improve" our measurements by an infinitesimal value, usually never observable as the improvements are so tiny, we just have to totally trust the claimants.

There is no way any of us non approved mindless mass of morons can verify the statement made by the geniuses of science- the custodians of all knowledge. We have to simply have FAITH.

Einsteins theories don't Improve, they totally REPLACE the original Physics.
But in truth we ALL STILL USE the replaced and wrong physics, in every day Physics used by technical engineers etc, (because its perfectly accurate) but on these days of computers, IF Einstein's claims are correct, then ALL engineers would have the ability to use the correct, full math of Einstein for EVERY task, as ACCURACY is the key word now-days. BUT NO ONE EVER DOES.
Seems we need super accuracy for our wonderful technology, but its OK to still used the ERRONEOUS Newtonian Math while all the time we have the easy and available math that is 100% accurate, from Einstein available at the touch of a keyboard?

Now you need to think about this, the BIG PICTURE: Einstein DESTROYED, not improved these core principals of Physics:

Destroyed dimensions, i.e, a length of an object is now not a constant, its a subjective variable, the object has no fixed size!
Destroyed the MASS or Weight of said object by the same process.

Reified the measurement we called Time, ( a concept) and turned it into a actual object of Physical matter, able to be affected by MASS, and in turn able to affect physical objects.

In doing that, he also DESTROYED the usefulness of Time measurements, (which is a critical part of the study of Physics) because he made the only important aspect of Time, that is its regularity and repeatability as a measure, INTO a VARIABLE, physical object!
Now it changes according to subjective experience of an observer!

ALL of the KEY properties of Matter in the study of PHYSICS which allowed man to formulate ALL of the LAWS of Physics, have now been DESTROYED. They are the CONSTANTS of Time, size, Mass, Motion. Without such constants, ALL of our existing equations are MEANINGLESS!

Einstein replaced ALL physics which was OBSERVATION based, with a pseudo Science based on nothing but Mysticism and religious doctrines.

So, no, we are not getting down to the difference of opinion at all.

If you are going to say that Einsteins total replacement of classical Physics with his magic, is actually just a happy error that gives better results then you are missing the big picture.

IF Einstein's earth shattering theory is going to be acceptable then it MUST BE FUCKIING PERFECT FROM HYPOTHESIS TO THE MATH, with NOT a single contradiction or paradox anywhere, from word one to the last period.

But unfortunately its a paper that's full of shit.

My conclusion is that NASA, NIST, the US government, ALL Zionist run education is lying to us about a great number of things, while the themselves possess the real science, which possibly began as a process around the time of the Knights Templar, and their discoveries... the early Masonic discoveries in the Holy Lands... ancient wisdom .. lost to us now, but maybe not lost to ALL of us... just guessing here.

And no-one can justifiably claim that all aspects of modern human life has been manipulated by Zionists, EXCEPT Science!

Last edited by Mark Elin; December 20th, 2019 at 06:27 PM. Reason: typos
 
Old December 20th, 2019 #35
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
We are skipping the issue. Making excuses.
What Theoretical Mathematics is able to dream up that later proves to be useful IN MATHEMATICS, has not bearing on the study of Physic, the metaphor leads to possibly wrong conclusions.

Please provide examples that are within the bounds of the study of Physics.
I already gave you the example of electrical impedance, which is part of physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
I repeat, that the scientific process always begins with an observation, a description, then a proposed explanation, followed with a way to test if the explanation fits under differing circumstances, in that order, for a good reason.

Physics that begins from the wrong end is "begging the question".



It's like imagining that there is a metal that is opposite to lead, and it floats on air.
Then describing how many electrons, protons and neutrons each atom must have, and then rushing off to the nearest Particle Accelerator for an observation of a track that one such theoretical atom might leave, which EXACTLY describes the pseudo science of Particle Physics. Another total fraud.

Comparing epicycle astronomy with modern elliptical understanding is NOT in the same boat as what Einstein is claiming in the slightest.

The step from one shape of orbit to a different shape orbit improved the calculations accuracy.

But Einsteins "improvement" of accuracy, actually destroys all past Physics totally!

The conclusions are NOT improvements, but a sweeping away of all known laws of Physics. This is a major claim, not an incremental step towards more accuracy!
All of Einstein's laws are reducible to classical physics at all speeds not close to the speed of light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
And so this is why the theory MUST NOT be a wrong theory that just happens by total random chance to have stumbled on the exact right math to "improve" our measurements by an infinitesimal value, usually never observable as the improvements are so tiny, we just have to totally trust the claimants.

There is no way any of us non approved mindless mass of morons can verify the statement made by the geniuses of science- the custodians of all knowledge. We have to simply have FAITH.

Einsteins theories don't Improve, they totally REPLACE the original Physics.
But in truth we ALL STILL USE the replaced and wrong physics, in every day Physics used by technical engineers etc, (because its perfectly accurate) but on these days of computers, IF Einstein's claims are correct, then ALL engineers would have the ability to use the correct, full math of Einstein for EVERY task, as ACCURACY is the key word now-days. BUT NO ONE EVER DOES.
Seems we need super accuracy for our wonderful technology, but its OK to still used the ERRONEOUS Newtonian Math while all the time we have the easy and available math that is 100% accurate, from Einstein available at the touch of a keyboard?
There would be zero point in using relativity in most calculations, even in engineering calculations, because it only makes a difference at speeds close to the speed of light. It would be like using a micrometer to measure your shoe size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
Now you need to think about this, the BIG PICTURE: Einstein DESTROYED, not improved these core principals of Physics:

Destroyed dimensions, i.e, a length of an object is now not a constant, its a subjective variable, the object has no fixed size!
Destroyed the MASS or Weight of said object by the same process.

Reified the measurement we called Time, ( a concept) and turned it into a actual object of Physical matter, able to be affected by MASS, and in turn able to affect physical objects.

In doing that, he also DESTROYED the usefulness of Time measurements, (which is a critical part of the study of Physics) because he made the only important aspect of Time, that is its regularity and repeatability as a measure, INTO a VARIABLE, physical object!
Now it changes according to subjective experience of an observer!

ALL of the KEY properties of Matter in the study of PHYSICS which allowed man to formulate ALL of the LAWS of Physics, have now been DESTROYED. They are the CONSTANTS of Time, size, Mass, Motion. Without such constants, ALL of our existing equations are MEANINGLESS!

Einstein replaced ALL physics which was OBSERVATION based, with a pseudo Science based on nothing but Mysticism and religious doctrines.
Believing in Einstein's theories uncritically may very well lead to the destruction of science. I am no fan of Einstein. But some of the formulas that he published, which he may have plagiarized from others, have some limited uses. I am saying nothing more than this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
So, no, we are not getting down to the difference of opinion at all.

If you are going to say that Einsteins total replacement of classical Physics with his magic, is actually just a happy error that gives better results then you are missing the big picture.

IF Einstein's earth shattering theory is going to be acceptable then it MUST BE FUCKIING PERFECT FROM HYPOTHESIS TO THE MATH, with NOT a single contradiction or paradox anywhere, from word one to the last period.

But unfortunately its a paper that's full of shit.
Now you're showing your true colors. Expecting perfection in any human endeavor is futile. Scientific theories often go through phases of refinement, as you have already acknowledged. No scientific theory is ever the last word on anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elin View Post
My conclusion is that NASA, NIST, the US government, ALL Zionist run education is lying to us about a great number of things, while the themselves possess the real science, which possibly began as a process around the time of the Knights Templar, and their discoveries... the early Masonic discoveries in the Holy Lands... ancient wisdom .. lost to us now, but maybe not lost to ALL of us... just guessing here.

And no-one can justifiably claim that all aspects of modern human life has been manipulated by Zionists, EXCEPT Science!
They're definitely manipulating science, there's no question there.

Could we possibly approach this from another angle? Are you 100% certain that Newton's laws are the last word on physics, and that they will never be shown to be incorrect under any circumstance, for all time to come? If you say they are, there are only two possibilities:
  1. That you have vigorously validated them logically and determined thay any deviation would entail a contradiction.
  2. You simply regard them as axioms.
In either case, you are wrong. If you simply validated them logically, you have done so only in terms of existing experience and existing degrees of accuracy. If you take them as axioms, then you are disregarding experience altogether.

The point is that we never reach the end of science. Long-held theories can be refined or overturned, but life goes on. Aristotle was, for a long time, thought to be the final authority on science, but today his science is regarded largely as a joke. "Ah, but now we are certain, and our theories will last forever!" That's what everyone thought about many previous ideas, too.

Bob Whitaker has said that every human society has certainty of the correctness of its own way of thinking, until the day that it is overthrown and replaced by another. Newton's laws, great though they may be, have no guarantee of immortality. Einstein is not the one to overthrow them; better theories will come along that explain things better, and Einstein will be forgotten, but Newton will not, nor will Aristotle. Scientific progress is ongoing; it never ends.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 21st, 2019 #36
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

Quote: "All of Einstein's laws are reducible to classical physics at all speeds not close to the speed of light." unquote.

You are missing the point, at ANY speed, Time, Distances and Mass is no longer a constant, reliable measure of any object or its rate of motion.

Even at zero speed, these properties which must be constants for classical Physics, are never again ever able to be considered as constants. They are all subjective variables.
Because zero speed is zero relative to WHOM? For someone, somewhere anything is moving, as in this universe NOTHING is truly stationary, so every object is constantly changing its perceived time, length and mass, so Einstein’s theories apply ALL the time.
You don't get that the theory PRECLUDES the use of Newtons Laws, TOTALLY, as the two theories are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed positions.
I know they SAY that “oh well, at our low speeds just use Newtons equations”, but this is a totally wrong approach, and does not apply Einstein’s theory at all.

But they DO IT because they still need to design spaceships, airplanes etc that have to work!

Newton says that a block of steel stays the same size, weight and its motion is measurable according to the reliable time keeping systems we invented, clocks.
ALL of the Law of Physics that we still use daily are Newtons laws.
Einstein says that The block of steel has NO FINITE DIMENSIONS, NO FINITE WEIGHT, and Time is unknowable, unreliable and different for every observer.
In fact Einstein says that the block of steel is just energy.

The two theories are INCOMPATIBLE totally.

Einstein’s theories fucks up Newtons Laws, but they ignore the conflicts when they say you can still use Newtons laws, unless you go really fast, like an appreciable percentage of light speed. I did not think that those GPS satellites were moving any faster than 30000 kph which is hardly moving compared to light speed.....
SO you DO need it, but only when it suits you? (when no one can check you work)

I don’t know why you insist that we can accept a destruction of ALL Newtonian Physics, all the laws that we still use, even when they are totally incompatible with the "correct" Einstein theories, and accept it all without any care if the theory is sane, rational, and has sound logic and solid math.

What the fucking point of studying Newtons Laws when NONE of the properties involved are constants, when they MUST BE constant for Newtons Laws to work?

And Einstein’s equations ONLY work at faster seeds? Well, you are aware that Cosmologists are claiming that distant galaxies in the accelerating, expanding Universe are now moving away at FASTER than light speed.... Well, according to Einstein’s main principal, that of relative motion, (actually Galileo's law) its not possible o tell which galaxy is moving, so it is just as correct to say that its the Milky Way galaxy that is moving at more than light speed! Relative to those distant ones.
So objects dimensions, mass and time is all fucked up because everything is in motion, really fast relative motion.
Which "frame of reference" is the right one to consider? Is it the frame that includes the guy in a car with his GPS, and the GPS satellite, or the Earth and the satellite, or the solar system and the satellite? they are all frames of reference, picked as casually as you want. Yet they all will come up with wildly different lengths for the car, totally different distance to the satellite, and the time involved will be anyone guess. The mass of the Satellite will be somewhere between zero to infinity, depending solely on who is watching it. So to calculate how much fuel will be needed to get the satellite up there, we should ask the observer who has the lowest measured value, they are all correct, and the satellite is any distance away, no one can be sure, and we also cant really tell when it will get into position, could be a few seconds, or several years, according to different peoples observations, all correct. BECAUSE Lengths, Weights, Movement and Time is now all a subjective experience. Next they will be claiming that there are more than TWO Genders in Humans!

Einsteins theory actually DOES claim these things, and there is no way in hell I'm about to toss in the rational proven work of Newton for this absolute Moronic shit.

<Quote: > “Could we possibly approach this from another angle? Are you 100% certain that Newton's laws are the last word on physics, and that they will never be shown to be incorrect under any circumstance, for all time to come? If you say they are, there are only two possibilities:
That you have vigorously validated them logically and determined thay any deviation would entail a contradiction.
You simply regard them as axioms.
In either case, you are wrong. If you simply validated them logically, you have done so only in terms of existing experience and existing degrees of accuracy. If you take them as axioms, then you are disregarding experience altogether." <unquote>

There are more than two possibilities.
3 would be the case where the Laws of Newton are so simple, that not only are they Rational (Einsteins are irrational) but they are also theoretically, mathematically and Experimentally demonstrable beyond any chance that there can be any possible exceptions.
E=mc2 is a debatable claim, but F=m*a is not debatable. Because all of the CONSTANTS of Newtons Laws are simply defined, easily verifiable, and have NEVER been observed to behave any differently! (despite claims of Quantum Physics, which is a subjective observational, experiential mystical religious belief system)
Its worth noting that NEVER has any Physicist "observed" the length or distance change that is predicted by Special Relativity, nor the Mass increase.... but they are claiming that Time IS changing, because this one can’t easily be verified or easily refuted. (because they have "reified" the concept of Time, now its a real thing, not a concept!)

So, yes, SOME current theories will be replaced by better theories, (they would be all the crazy theories that are based on Einstein’s SR and GR!)
But there is NOT a chance in hell that F=m*a or P=ma can ever be found to be inaccurate or somehow wrong. Period. Yes we can say that.

But many of the complex shit that passes as theories nowdays is bound to be replaced as we get new info, and these include theories of non-physical processes, forces such as electricity and magnetism, and gravity, also light.
But Newtons simple laws about force, mass, motion, length, the use of Time, can never be replaced. But these most simple laws are the very ones that Einstein attacks! And he replaces them with a theory that strangely is practically impossible to ever observe!

I thought that if I can demonstrate the Einsteins theories are just WRONG, then that's justification to discard them totally, but apparently " wrong and truly fucked up" is good enough for science... its good enough base to use for a total rework of all established Physics. I must come from a planet where they expected more of humans.
 
Old December 21st, 2019 #37
Nikola Bijeliti
fluxmaster
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Parallel Flux Universe
Posts: 1,491
Blog Entries: 32
Default

Vulcan (hypothetical planet)
Quote:
Vulcan is a small hypothetical planet that was proposed to exist in an orbit between Mercury and the Sun. The 19th-century French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier hypothesized that peculiarities in Mercury's orbit were the result of another planet, which he named "Vulcan".

A number searches were made for Vulcan, but despite occasional claimed observations, no such planet was ever confirmed. Peculiarities in Mercury's orbit are now explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
How would you explain the pecularities in Mercury's orbit without using relativity?
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old December 21st, 2019 #38
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

How would you explain that the orbit of Mercury was "peculiar"?

The orbit of Mercury is doing what it does, according to natural conditions, but if humans think that its strange, I suggest that its because there is MUCH we don't know (or cant possible understand) about orbiting planets, and so the feeble explanations we have invented are just probably inadequate for all the circumstances. We have what? ONE set of MATH based on an un-provable and probably totally insufficient theory that all planet motion is 100% the result of Gravity, (now replaced with spacetime,) when there most likely are other forces at work that influence the motion. The CALCULATED abnormality in Mercury's orbit is showing up ONLY because we cant calculate correctly. In Einsteins day, the "error" was two tenth of sweet fuck all, and only discernible over decades. Again, its weird that ALL, every single theory of Einstein involves observations that are so minute, practically IMPOSSIBLE for anyone other than Government agencies and huge corporations to measure.The margin of error is LARGER than the results you are expecting to find!
Despite what I just said, here is one proposal:
http://milesmathis.com/merc2.html
I don't believe a lot of what this guy claims for Physics in general, but it proves that Einsteins solution for Mercury is not the ONLY way to solve the "problem", If there is more than one proposal, then we don't get to pick one just because its our favorite.
I think I have yet another explanation for Mercury, and Im trying to dig up the reference.

Last edited by Mark Elin; December 21st, 2019 at 06:10 PM.
 
Old December 21st, 2019 #39
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default And ANOTHER way to explain Mercury...

Here is explanation number 2... I have three proposals that dont require Einstein.

http://einstein-is-wrong.forumotion....-error-of-gr#9


That's my forum I just created, to discuss Einstein without getting banned.
Ive been banned from several physics forums for talking about Physics.
 
Old December 21st, 2019 #40
Mark Elin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 53
Default

And here's a 3rd explanation:

http://www.tychos.info/citation/126A...Precession.pdf
and
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Jo.../Download/1454

So the conclusion is that you have been LIED to, by mainstream science when they claim that ONLY Einsteins GR can Explain the abnormality of Mercury's orbit wobble.

Ive given you three alternative, scientific papers all of which use classical Physics to explain the Orbit. There are probably others as well.

The upshot is that ALL of these are best guesses, as we don't KNOW this stuff for sure.

However, of all the proposals, Einstein's is the LEAST plausible, as the theory conclusions are irrational, (space and time can possibly combine, and then BEND! yeah, right... pull the other leg.)
 
Reply

Tags
einstein, frauds, physics, special realtivity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.
Page generated in 0.21132 seconds.