Yes.... I was in graduate school with the fellow (a graduate of Princeton Physics undergraduate department) who worked at the Naval Observatory who developed the GPS correction. He died a bit young, but left a substantial legacy, including the GPS work.
So much of modern society would be completely nonfunctional were special relativity substantially wrong. GPS units, for example, need to take it into account to not send you careening off a cliff.
Yes.... I was in graduate school with the fellow (a graduate of Princeton Physics undergraduate department) who worked at the Naval Observatory who developed the GPS correction. He died a bit young, but left a substantial legacy, including the GPS work.
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
Somehow I doubt that Foos has any academic experience. People who have been in academia tend to write understandable (if occasionally jargon clouded) sentences unlike Foos. Does he/she even know what "the 900 blokes bloating in Jamestown" means? And surely his first sentence about Essan is saying that the man is a blatant fraud and yet recommends him at the same time? Can you actually say that a half-wit can point out flaws in Einsteins ideas and be serious? I would like an example of that please.
Perhaps Foos is not a native English speaker or is simple a little funny in the noggin or perhaps he is a postmoderist poet who makes art that befuddles its viewers. In any case the Jamestown sentence is certainly comic gold and probably deserves some kind of prize from Armstrong for "most nonsensical comment made on this site."
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good boilerplate for the suckling masses, but some of us have earned the right to talk, and I'm one of them. Any half wit can pick out major flaws, even outright falsehoods, in Einstein's ideas, and even Einstein abandoned most of them over the sequence of 3 publications of SR and the final botch called GR. Nor is it difficult, except for the easily impressed, to pull a formula out of your ass and then twist it around to match an observation, but that isn't real science, nor does relativity actually fit that well, if you happen to have studied that much. Real science is an idea that makes sense and always works. But while we're at it, I'd suggest you abandon Dingle, whose achievements and credibility dwarf your own, and pick up Mr. Essan, who invented the atomic clock that supposedly confirmed Einstein, an experiment he would know did nothing of the sort, and which later was proved to be a blatant fraud. Mr. Essan also found the first accurate measurement for the speed of light. He was intimately familiar with these things, far more so than Mr. Einstein, and has done us the favor of a probable Nobel prize on the back burner to state in a very forthright manner some, but not all, of the absurdities in Einstein's theory. Get a mind of your own, Mr. Armstrong, after you get a real degree if you haven't, lest you end up like one of the 900 blokes bloating in Jamestown.
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good boilerplate for the suckling masses, but some of us have earned the right to talk, and I'm one of them. Any half wit can pick out major flaws, even outright falsehoods, in Einstein's ideas, and even Einstein abandoned most of them over the sequence of 3 publications of SR and the final botch called GR. Nor is it difficult, except for the easily impressed, to pull a formula out of your ass and then twist it around to match an observation, but that isn't real science, nor does relativity actually fit that well, if you happen to have studied that much. Real science is an idea that makes sense and always works. But while we're at it, I'd suggest you abandon Dingle, whose achievements and credibility dwarf your own, and pick up Mr. Essan, who invented the atomic clock that supposedly confirmed Einstein, an experiment he would know did nothing of the sort, and which later was proved to be a blatant fraud. Mr. Essan also found the first accurate measurement for the speed of light. He was intimately familiar with these things, far more so than Mr. Einstein, and has done us the favor of a probable Nobel prize on the back burner to state in a very forthright manner some, but not all, of the absurdities in Einstein's theory. Get a mind of your own, Mr. Armstrong, after you get a real degree if you haven't, lest you end up like one of the 900 blokes bloating in Jamestown.
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
After starting from nowhere 3 years ago, I find only recently that Dingle seems far more reasonable to me than the rest. Of course, I'll be labeled a crackpot, but then I can go to sleep knowing that I'm sleeping on my own bed and will know how to find it again tomorrow. Even Einstein gave up on SR when he invented GR, but he didn't bother to tell the legions who are yet ready to swirl down the drain of his own circular logic. As for GR, I'm convinced it was a deliberate hoax, that way I don't feel quite so sorry for the old boy and his worshipping masses. I've crammed two sections on SR/GR into my statistics theorem, not relevant, I was just bored, so the writing needs some improvement. I don't worry that GR was a hoax, but I do worry that Einstein/Poincare/Hilbert actually believed it themselves. http://foossolvesunified.com
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good boilerplate for the suckling masses, but some of us have earned the right to talk, and I'm one of them. Any half wit can pick out major flaws, even outright falsehoods, in Einstein's ideas, and even Einstein abandoned most of them over the sequence of 3 publications of SR and the final botch called GR. Nor is it difficult, except for the easily impressed, to pull a formula out of your ass and then twist it around to match an observation, but that isn't real science, nor does relativity actually fit that well, if you happen to have studied that much. Real science is an idea that makes sense and always works. But while we're at it, I'd suggest you abandon Dingle, whose achievements and credibility dwarf your own, and pick up Mr. Essan, who invented the atomic clock that supposedly confirmed Einstein, an experiment he would know did nothing of the sort, and which later was proved to be a blatant fraud. Mr. Essan also found the first accurate measurement for the speed of light. He was intimately familiar with these things, far more so than Mr. Einstein, and has done us the favor of a probable Nobel prize on the back burner to state in a very forthright manner some, but not all, of the absurdities in Einstein's theory. Get a mind of your own, Mr. Armstrong, after you get a real degree if you haven't, lest you end up like one of the 900 blokes bloating in Jamestown.
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
It's a bit late now, but you are correct about the twin paradox seemingly being insolvable in special relativity. However note that one (or both) of the twins must accelerate (or decelerate then accelerate) in order for them to meet again. Special relativity doesn't cover this. Apologies if this isn't your problem with it.
Re: Dingle
Poor Dingle has been shot at, ridiculed, abused, ignored, publicly humiliated, and yet nobody was able to address and solve the logical error that pretty much kills the
Special theory of relativity. Certainly physicists are not in a hurry to do that.
I am a father of twin boys. Sometimes one of them goes out. The moment he steps out, he could be traveling the speed of light or not. In the end it does not matter, the boy will come back as old and tall and massive as before. Why? Because I did not measure him.
I would really like to hear a logical refutation of twin paradox. NO math. Can you do that?
It's a bit late now, but you are correct about the twin paradox seemingly being insolvable in special relativity. However note that one (or both) of the twins must accelerate (or decelerate then accelerate) in order for them to meet again. Special relativity doesn't cover this. Apologies if this isn't your problem with it.
You misunderstand the point: if a theory postulates X is not Y, you cannot criticise that theory simply by assuming X is Y. My criticism of Winterflood thus has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of Relativity, merely with his flawed understanding of it.
Your own criticism of Einstein is too brief and vague to examine properly, but if Relativity were simply a logically circular interpretation of observation then it could not have been used to make, for example, verifiable predictions of the decay of sub-atomic particles.
You may not like Relativity but unless you are able to propose an alternative which not only explains observed phenomena but also makes non-trivial predictions, you are liable to be thought a kook.
For better or worse, your initial criticism of Winterflood appears to rely upon precisely the "flaw" that you criticize in his writing. Einstein's description of clocks and rulers in the 1905 paper relies upon the postulate that the speed of light is isotropic and uses that postulate to formulate a system of remote clocks which are said to be "synchronized" if a relationship which assumes that the speed of light is isotropic. This also relies upon a circular argument. The synchronization process relied upon works equally well in a moving system with asymmetric light propagation.
As to the comment regarding two independent expanding spheres of light propagation, it is clear that only one event occurs no matter how many observers see it from any number of points of view. For example, if an interferometer produces stationary fringes on a screen, ALL observers will see the fringes as stationary. If they choose to adopt the postulates of Einstein, they may have differing explainations for the observation, but the fringes will remain stationary regardless of the speed and direction of the multiple observers with regard to the apparatus.
You misunderstand the point: if a theory postulates X is not Y, you cannot criticise that theory simply by assuming X is Y. My criticism of Winterflood thus has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of Relativity, merely with his flawed understanding of it.
Your own criticism of Einstein is too brief and vague to examine properly, but if Relativity were simply a logically circular interpretation of observation then it could not have been used to make, for example, verifiable predictions of the decay of sub-atomic particles.
You may not like Relativity but unless you are able to propose an alternative which not only explains observed phenomena but also makes non-trivial predictions, you are liable to be thought a kook.
Yes.... I was in graduate…
Yes.... I was in graduate school with the fellow (a graduate of Princeton Physics undergraduate department) who worked at the Naval Observatory who developed the GPS correction. He died a bit young, but left a substantial legacy, including the GPS work.
A fascinating article about a
A fascinating article about a fascinating topic. It is good that Einstein did get rid of the "ether".
Print a book
http://www.thebookpatch.com/
What?
What?
Well done! You have unlocked
Well done! You have unlocked the Fractured Syntax badge.
I want to make sure that it
I want to make sure that it is very important to see whether or not his is something that is going to improve in many way.
What?
What?
Well done! You have unlocked
Well done! You have unlocked the Fractured Syntax badge.
Lots of cranks on this blog.
Lots of cranks on this blog.
So much of modern society would be completely nonfunctional were special relativity substantially wrong. GPS units, for example, need to take it into account to not send you careening off a cliff.
Yes.... I was in graduate…
Yes.... I was in graduate school with the fellow (a graduate of Princeton Physics undergraduate department) who worked at the Naval Observatory who developed the GPS correction. He died a bit young, but left a substantial legacy, including the GPS work.
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
Somehow I doubt that Foos has
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
Yes, General Relativity was
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
After starting from nowhere
Yes, General Relativity was
Well, Mr. Armstrong, good
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a
Louis Essen was undoubtedly a very clever chap, but being clever does not make you right. Time dilation and other predictions of SR and GR have been observed, so any criticism of Einstein that simply picks at his thought experiments is simply not good enough.
As I have said before if, you can pull a theory "out of your ass" that is as good as Einstein's in matching observation and - more importantly - predicting new phenomena, please let me know. Until then, the charge of being a pompous windbag and crank will stand.
It's a bit late now, but you
Re: Dingle Poor Dingle has
It's a bit late now, but you
You misunderstand the point:
You misunderstand the point: if a theory postulates X is not Y, you cannot criticise that theory simply by assuming X is Y. My criticism of Winterflood thus has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of Relativity, merely with his flawed understanding of it.
Your own criticism of Einstein is too brief and vague to examine properly, but if Relativity were simply a logically circular interpretation of observation then it could not have been used to make, for example, verifiable predictions of the decay of sub-atomic particles.
You may not like Relativity but unless you are able to propose an alternative which not only explains observed phenomena but also makes non-trivial predictions, you are liable to be thought a kook.
For better or worse, your
You misunderstand the point:
You misunderstand the point: if a theory postulates X is not Y, you cannot criticise that theory simply by assuming X is Y. My criticism of Winterflood thus has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of Relativity, merely with his flawed understanding of it.
Your own criticism of Einstein is too brief and vague to examine properly, but if Relativity were simply a logically circular interpretation of observation then it could not have been used to make, for example, verifiable predictions of the decay of sub-atomic particles.
You may not like Relativity but unless you are able to propose an alternative which not only explains observed phenomena but also makes non-trivial predictions, you are liable to be thought a kook.