Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Lorentz Invariance Confirmed!

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Lorentz Invariance Confirmed!

    http://www.physlink.com/News/010304EinsteinTested.cfm

    Quantum turbulence no longer tenable?

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Two Points:

    1. Here we have another scientist trying to prove how smart he is by proving Einstein right. Jewish correctness? Whatever it is, three generations of physicists have gone down this road. They have wasted billions of dollars. What do we have in return? Absolutely nothing. I know the argument about applied vs pure research, but it is time physicists started trying to solve our energy problems on this planet (and so solving our environmental problems) rather than their own egos.

    What about Einstein as a "great man"? Einstein, immediately after WW2, was given credit for the atomic bomb. This is laughable. The Germans, in 1939,sustained a controled chain reaction, without Einstein. Dr. Friedrich Lachner showed the world how to construct an atomic bomb at about the same time, without every having to find critical mass. So what did we need Einstein for, absolutely nothing. What has become of this technology since, only more death and poisioning of the planet. Einstein gave us nothing of value if he gave us anything at all.

    2. This article dealt with gravity. It mentions Einstein and associates him with theoritical ideas on gravity. Then it says we have no Unified Field Theory explaining and integrating various energies, including gravity, into a whole theory.

    Is this a surprise? How many years are we going to piss away doing this kind of "reseach". It is real simple. We have no Unified Field Theory because gravity remains undescribed as far as the world of conventional physics is concerned. Let me say it another way. Newton told us how gravity behaves--no problem--but he didn't tell us what gravity is. Einstein, inspite of all that is said about him, never told us what gravity is. He could squiggle on a chalkboard and look smart. He could rat his hair up but the answer is not there. And as long as nobody tells you what gravity is, NO UNIFIED FIELD THEORY IS POSSIBLE.

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    The Germans, in 1939,sustained a controled chain reaction, without Einstein.
    Enrico Fermi was the first to sustain a chain reaction (University of Chicago "Pile"; 1942); the Germans were the first to demonstrate that fission could occur (1938).


    So what did we need Einstein for, absolutely nothing.
    Einstein used his prestige to convince Roosevelt that the US should pursue an nuclear weapons program (the Manhattan Project; at the time, it seemed as though the Germans were doing the same). Had Einstein not written his famous letter (w/ Szilard), the US never would have pursued a nuclear program.


    Einstein, inspite of all that is said about him, never told us what gravity is.
    Einstein postulated that gravity was the result of mass (or energy) deforming his putative "fabric of space-time".

    Imagine placing a bowling ball (our Sun) on a taught matress, and then rolling a marble (light) along the surface. The marble's trajectory - which would be linear on the matress without the bowling ball - is deflected by the deformed portion of the matress, as a result of the presence of the bowling ball.

    This behaviour was confirmed (involving our Sun and stellar light) during a solar eclipse in 1922 (1921?).


    Newton told us how gravity behaves.
    Newton was wrong in that he postulated that gravity propagated infinitely quickly; Einstein, who was right, said it propagated at the speed of light.
    Last edited by The Blond Beast; Tuesday, January 13th, 2004 at 12:47 AM.

  4. #4
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Again, Einstein never told us what gravity was. As for the speed of gravity, again, a description. Light is a photon. Heat is molecular movement. What is gravity, Dr. Einstein, please? Einstein should have lived long enough to do the Seinfeld show, he would have been a regular.

  5. #5
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    Again, Einstein never told us what gravity was.
    Again,

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blond Beast
    Einstein postulated that gravity was the result of mass (or energy) deforming his putative "fabric of space-time".
    Adherents of the Classical Model have been looking for the apparently ephemeral "Graviton", but - surprise, surprise - have been unable to detect it.

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Again, describing what it does is not describing what it is. Has a gravitron ever been captured? Has a gravitron every been photographed going through a cloud chamber? Has a gravitron every been detected using magnetic means? Of course not. Is a gravitron a part of the electromagnetic spectrum? We don't know, Einstein, our scientific god, didn't tell us. Is a gravitron a radiation of any kind? Or is it an attraction, like the poles of a magnet? Is it an attractive force or is it a particle. Let's face it, Newton didn't have the means to answer the question so he could only describe the effects of gravity. Einstein knew he didn't know, so tried to dodge the question as best as possible while puffing a pipe and ratting his hair. The amazing thing is that everyone bought this act.

  7. #7
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    Again, describing what it does is not describing what it is.
    I think you're missing the fact that Einstein postulated gravity as being passive; he never thought of it as being particle-driven (i.e. the "Graviton")

    Is a gravitron a radiation... is it a particle.
    Wave/Particle Duality leaves that up to the Observer (see Feynman and the "Two Slit Experiment").

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

  8. #8
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    How could Einstein postulate a "passive" force? What is a passive force? Any energy you can name is not passive, it is active. Gravity is an active force. I believe Einstein said (in describing gravity) that it was in no way different from accelleration, meaning that G-1= earth's gravity, G-2 is twice that, etc. We know jet pilots experience G-8 or so without blacking out. This "G-8" force would be no different than being on a planet eight times the size of earth according to Einstein.

    Einstein's "gravity well" is another attempt at describing gravity---but it doesn't tell us what gravity is.

    Isn't it strange that we have to go to aether physics to receive a theory on what gravity is. This was exactly the physics Einstein thought to discredit. Yet, he came up with a huge void in its place and never replaced it. Yet, even with 60 years of shortcomings, every physicist treats Einstein as some sort of icon. I have even read on this board that Einstein was really not the first to originate his famous equation, E=MC2.

  9. #9
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    How could Einstein postulate a "passive" force? What is a passive force?
    I guess "passive" was not the appropriate word; supplant it with implicit.

    Isn't it strange that we have to go to aether physics to receive a theory on what gravity is.
    Michelson-Morely went looking for it and found nothing; the aether doesn't exist. You believe otherwise?

    I have even read on this board that Einstein was really not the first to originate his famous equation, E=MC2.
    I wouldn't lend a world of credence to what you see on the internet, but I have also heard the same (I believe there is a book which accuses Einstein of plagiarism). A lot of the concepts he gets credited with have been postulated by others (i.e. Poincare, Mach...).

  10. #10
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Lorentz invariance confirmed

    The Michelson-Morely experiment was set up with the implicit assumption that aether was matter as in the Greek sense of the word. Aether is not matter, but, under certain circumstances, aether can be transformed into matter. This was not the point of Michelson-Morely and their negative results were incorporated by Einstein and became a fundamental pillar for physics as we know it. Yes, I know aether exists. But this didn't come out of my head. Rather than go on and on with this, please let me give you the sources for these beliefs:

    Technology, Medine and Society, by Dr. Hans Nieper, MIT Verlag, Oldenburg, Germany. Nieper explains aether 100 different ways with hundreds of examples. The German version of this book is what Germans go to first to understand this concept.

    The Physics of the Primary State of Matter, Cyril W. Davson,Elverton Books, London. Old book by an engineer who studied with Karl Schappeller in Austria. Schappeller invented a free energy device. "primary physics" is aether physics since matter and energy as we know it are derivitives of aether.

    Occult Ether Physics, William Lyne, Creatopia Productions, Lamy, NM. Tesla's experiments with aether (he made it behave like it was matter using high voltage, high frequency alternating current in a gridwork).

    The latter book will be the easiest to find. Davson is very hard to understand. Nieper is the master at instruction.

    One more thing about Einstein. If Einstein had a theory of gravity, if he could define it and explain what it was, then, because the other Forces are rather well known, he would have had a complete picture of how each force relates and could be translated into another. In short, he would have had a Unified Field Theory. The proof that Einstein didn't know what gravity was is exactly that, Einstein had no Unified Field Theory. Nieper does!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Indonesian 'Hobbit' Confirmed to Be a New Species
    By Triglav in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 07:50 PM
  2. Water Ice on Mars Confirmed
    By The Horned God in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 08:06 AM
  3. Eleaticus/Oren C. Webster: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals
    By WestPrussian in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, October 29th, 2004, 08:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •