Discussion:
EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IN DISGRACE FOR 50 YEARS
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2015-06-23 09:43:36 UTC
Permalink
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/jun/23/the-genesis-and-renaissance-of-general-relativity
"As described in Pedro Ferreira's book "The Perfect Theory", after its development by Albert Einstein about a 100 years ago, and the subsequent big splash of its vindication by Eddington's observations of stars near to the Sun during an eclipse, the general theory of relativity went into a bit of a lull, becoming something of a backwater. It answered the fundamental questions in physics that it was intended for, and the equations supported some interesting solutions, but the theory did not develop. Unusually for a great breakthrough in science, it did not seem to lead on to further exciting questions and phenomena, especially when contrasted with quantum theory, which was bursting out all over."

Why was that? The answer is simple: The initial frauds were not yet forgotten and Einsteinians had problems with their conscience:

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm
Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53481-19255-0/1?toolid=10029&campid=CAMPAIGNID&customid=CUSTOMID&catId=267&type=2&ext=161737815072&item=161737815072
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2015-06-23 10:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/jun/23/the-genesis-and-renaissance-of-general-relativity
"As described in Pedro Ferreira's book "The Perfect Theory", after its development by Albert Einstein about a 100 years ago, and the subsequent big splash of its vindication by Eddington's observations of stars near to the Sun during an eclipse, the general theory of relativity went into a bit of a lull, becoming something of a backwater. It answered the fundamental questions in physics that it was intended for, and the equations supported some interesting solutions, but the theory did not develop. Unusually for a great breakthrough in science, it did not seem to lead on to further exciting questions and phenomena, especially when contrasted with quantum theory, which was bursting out all over."
http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."
http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm
Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53481-19255-0/1?toolid=10029&campid=CAMPAIGNID&customid=CUSTOMID&catId=267&type=2&ext=161737815072&item=161737815072
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."
Pentcho Valev
Again, you are misrepresenting what normally happens in physics. Theories
do get replaced and augmented yet nobody writes:

"Newton's mechanics in disgrace for 110 years",

"Maxwell's electrodynamics in disgrace for 90 years",

etc. etc.

It's very TELLING how you choose your words to describe what is considered
routine progress. You are a typical Einstein-obsessed cuckoo this NG is
so full of.

--
Jan
Edgardo Alcantara
2015-06-23 16:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
"Newton's mechanics in disgrace for 110 years",
Supposes forces acting at distance.
Post by JanPB
"Maxwell's electrodynamics in disgrace for 90 years",
Supposes rotating rigid 2d hexagons filling the 3d space-
Post by JanPB
etc. etc.
Yes, which one? Make a suggestion as Pentcho does. Be a man.
Post by JanPB
It's very TELLING how you choose your words to describe what is
considered routine progress. You are a typical Einstein-obsessed cuckoo
this NG is so full of.
Where are the other ones?
Pentcho Valev
2015-06-23 20:43:12 UTC
Permalink
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/perimeter-institute-celebrates-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-and-its-contemporary-renaissance
"Perimeter Institute celebrates Einstein's theory of general relativity and its contemporary renaissance (...) But for about 50 years after Einstein's initial papers, his most important work lay almost dormant. Few scientists were then studying notions that have become ubiquitous in pop science and science fiction: black holes, theoretical time travel, and mysterious dark matter permeating the universe. Then, in the mid-20th century, scientists sought to better understand the cosmos, general relativity suddenly seemed to explain almost everything. (Except certain quantum theories which don't seem to bend to the forces of gravity and could one day unravel the entire theory). As physicists gather at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario this week for the think tank's first Convergence conference, they'll mark the anniversary of a powerful but perhaps flawed theory that underpins so much of their work."

Powerful but perhaps flawed? And the flaw is... spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."


Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) For decades now, physicists have been stymied in their efforts to reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity, and quantum mechanics, which describes particles and forces (except gravity) on the smallest scales. The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
2015-06-23 21:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Powerful but perhaps flawed? And the flaw is... spacetime, the absurd
Yawn. Prevaricating Pentcho plies his lies over and over again.

Gary
Pentcho Valev
2015-06-24 07:35:38 UTC
Permalink
https://philippelefloch.wordpress.com/gr-celebration/
George Ellis: "Einstein's General Theory: What Makes It Different From The Rest Of Physics? Why Does This Make It Difficult To Deal With?"

Unlike the rest of physics which is deductive (based on mechanistic models in the sense described below), Einstein's general relativity is just an empirical model:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

The making of Einstein's general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting". As the following two texts clearly show, Einstein and his mathematical friends had to change and fudge the equations countless times until "excellent agreement" with known in advance results and pet assumptions was reached (that is, their model was empirical, not deductive):

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/04/23/einstein-besso-duo-pour-un-eureka_1341703_3244.html
"C'est à ce moment de l'histoire que commence celle, méconnue, du manuscrit Einstein-Besso. Le physicien convoque son ami et confident suisse pour l'aider à mener les calculs et tester son ébauche de relativité générale sur un problème bien connu des astronomes : l'anomalie de l'orbite de Mercure. "Depuis la fin du XIXe siècle, on sait de manière de plus en plus précise que le périhélie de cette planète (le point de son orbite le plus proche du Soleil) avance un peu plus que le prévoient les équations de Newton : l'excédent est de 43 secondes d'arc par siècle, c'est-à-dire l'angle sous lequel on voit un cheveu à une distance d'un mètre... Einstein se dit simplement que sa théorie sera validée si elle prédit correctement cette "anomalie" de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure." Une part du manuscrit Einstein-Besso est consacrée à ce test crucial. Aux pages d'Einstein, des lignes d'équations, sans ratures, presque vierges de tout texte, succèdent celles de Besso, un peu plus hésitantes et annotées de nombreuses explications. Le résultat est calamiteux. Au lieu d'expliquer le petit décalage de 43 secondes d'arc par siècle, la nouvelle théorie propose une avance de plus de 1 800 secondes d'arc par siècle. Très loin de la réalité des observations astronomiques ! "Mais, un peu plus loin dans le manuscrit, les deux hommes se rendent compte qu'ils se sont trompés sur la masse du Soleil"... Une erreur d'un facteur 10, qu'ils corrigent finalement, pour parvenir à un résultat moins absurde, mais toujours décevant : 18 secondes d'arc par siècle... Echec complet ? Un peu plus loin, en conclusion d'un tout autre calcul, Einstein écrit : "Stimmt" ("Correct"). "En dépit de l'échec de sa théorie à expliquer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, Einstein croit avoir démontré autre chose, au détour d'une équation... En mai 1907, il avait eu l'intuition qu'une chute libre peut "annuler" un champ de gravitation. Ici, il pense avoir démontré qu'un mouvement de rotation peut, lui aussi, être considéré comme équivalent à un champ de gravitation. Il croit avoir généralisé son principe d'équivalence." Mais, plus de deux ans plus tard, Einstein comprend que son calcul était faux : il n'a rien généralisé du tout. C'est alors qu'il accepte d'utiliser dans sa théorie le premier tenseur, jugé trop complexe, que lui avait proposé Grossmann. Et en 1915, il teste ce nouveau tenseur sur l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette fois, le résultat est le bon !"

In terms of Einstein's text below, unlike special relativity, general relativity was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein's mathematical friends helped him to compile "a classified catalogue" where known in advance results and pet assumptions (e.g. that of gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

The empirically chosen equations were gloriously compatible with known in advance results and pet assumptions but there was collateral damage as well - some of the predictions proved absurd. For instance, the speed of falling photons turned out to DECREASE (their acceleration in the gravitational field of the Earth was predicted to be -2g) - a general relativity result clever Einsteinians very much want to forget:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. (...) If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious. (...) When we say that the speed of light is decreased, we mean from the perspective of an observer fixed relative to the black hole and at an essentially infinite distance. On the contrary, to an observer free falling into the black hole, the speed of light, measured locally, would be unaltered from the standard value of c. Most of us have heard of the result from special relativity that the speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames. The result is not the same in general relativity. In general relativity, the statement becomes that the speed of light is the same (i.e., good old 'c') for all observers in local inertial frames. Local inertial frames in general relativity are just those frames of reference in which the observer is in gravitational free fall. (...) So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. (...) Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. You can find a more sophisticated result derived later by Einstein from the full general theory in the weak field approximation in the book: 'The Meaning of Relativity,' A. Einstein, Princeton University Press (1955). See pp. 92-93, eqn (107)."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev
kefischer
2015-06-24 11:30:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:35:38 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
Post by Pentcho Valev
https://philippelefloch.wordpress.com/gr-celebration/
George Ellis: "Einstein's General Theory: What Makes It Different From The Rest Of Physics? Why Does This Make It Difficult To Deal With?"
What are you trying to accomplish with snippets from
well known people, and selecting those parts to suit some
insane objective?

General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.

I find the next snippet to be a very good description
of the complexities of General Relativity, and how the
mathematics developed over an 8+ year period;
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data
with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated
with this model."
And, in the case of gravity, that was difficult.
The difficulty arises from trying to make (fit) the
gravitational process to the view of the human
observer, in a reference system where things
appear to fall with an acceleration.
There is extreme conflict between having
an apparent acceleration (in the observer's view)
and the physics required by Einstein's Principle
of Equivalence.
But it had to be done, by a man who used
"relativity" to explain conflicts between observer
views and the physical world.
Post by Pentcho Valev
"Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models.
Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide
insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that
is thought to govern the phenomenon under study."
General Relativity is a mathematical theory
that is designed to predict precise motion, it is
not designed, and does not provide insight into
the actual process of gravitation.
It does what needed to be done, explain
some of the evident discrepancies of Newtonian
mutual attraction gravitation.
It was all done transparent, with disclosure
of the thought process (thought experiments) of
having the observer accelerate instead of the
free falling objects.
Only then could freefall of any and all objects
be identical to any precision (in vacuum).

All of the different interpretations of Einstein's
Principle of Equivalence suffer from the writer's
lack of understanding the logic of having the
observer accelerate, instead of the falling object's
accelerating, so that freefall could not be anything
else but inertial motion, and all objects, regardless
of material or mass-quantity, absolutely had to
(appear to) fall with (apparent) equal acceleration.

Some writing seems to suggest that inertial
mass and gravitational mass being "equal" in
numerical value has some importance, as was
known since at least Galileo, whether or not the
writer understood the logic of actually having
the observer accelerate instead of the falling
objects is not important.
But by using "relativity", using the premise
of "inertial reference frames", one for the falling
objects, and one for the observer on the surface
of Earth, Einstein avoided the objections he
most surely would have suffered if he would
have attempted to make General Relativity,
a "mechanistic" model, where he would have
had to say the observer on the surface of Earth,
_IS_ accelerating upward, and the falling objects
_ARE_ in inertial motion.
There really is no difference between the
1905 situation of being on a train and looking
out the window and seeing another train along
side, and wondering which is moving, and the
situation of freefall, and wondering which is
accelerating, the observer, or the falling objects.

That is why it is called "Relativity". But the
choice of reference frames, one inertial (at rest)
and the other, accelerated, is not just a relativity
problem where gravity is concerned, either a
thing _IS_ accelerated, or it _IS_ "at rest" (in
inertial motion).
To be "mechanistic", it could no longer be
"relative", there has to be specific physical
definitions given to acceleration, and to types
of motion that have to differ from the classical
Newtonian systems.

It is entirely possible, that NO professional
physicist will _ever_ enjoin in a presentation of
_the_ "ONLY" mechanistic model of gravitation
possible, that _does_ say that the observer on
the surface of Earth _IS_ accelerating upward,
and that all objects freely moving in space are
free of all forces, and moving inertially, being
essentially, "at rest".
That unique mechanistic model is the
Divergent Matter model of gravitation.
Post by Pentcho Valev
"Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative
estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation
constants, catalytic velocities etc.).
It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical
models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular
curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a
biological, chemical or physical property."
Well, to do that would require the forthright
declaration that the observer on the surface of
Earth, _IS_ accelerating upward, and that would
be saying directly that the surface of the Earth
_IS_ moving away from it's center of mass _with_
an acceleration, and that an upward velocity does
exist (but not noticed), and that would have to mean,
that the Earth, and everything else, is expanding.

Who will be the first FOOLISH professional
physicist to go that route? :-)

Can't you hear them all silently saying, "NOT ME!"?
You are obviously mentally disturbed about
this, I hope the above explanation will ease your
irritation with the state of gravity theory.

But I see no benefit in what you are doing,
you aren't offering any alternate or anything to
resolve what you must see as a major problem,
so I am snipping the rest of your post, as I don't
want to be associated with any complaint about
General Relativity, I think it was the only option
available at the time.
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 15:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.
That is not complicated mathematics.
You have made it clear that from YOUR perspective, ANY mathematics is
difficult mathematics, but that doesn't represent anyone but you.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kefischer
2015-06-24 15:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.
That is not complicated mathematics.
That is the only valid complaint about GR,
most people find the math to be difficult because
it involves a lot of memorizing specialized functions
that most people would never use, and would forget.
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have made it clear that from YOUR perspective, ANY mathematics is
difficult mathematics, but that doesn't represent anyone but you.
Wrong, stupid, as usual, you misconstrue everything
said, I said I don't do math, not that it is difficult for me,
in fact, math is my best subject.
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 15:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.
That is not complicated mathematics.
That is the only valid complaint about GR,
most people find the math to be difficult because
it involves a lot of memorizing specialized functions
that most people would never use, and would forget.
Completely disagree.
Do not speak for "most people" when you are speaking for yourself, and
when *all* mathematics is problematic for you.
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have made it clear that from YOUR perspective, ANY mathematics is
difficult mathematics, but that doesn't represent anyone but you.
Wrong, stupid, as usual, you misconstrue everything
said, I said I don't do math, not that it is difficult for me,
in fact, math is my best subject.
Oh, dude, now you're in psychotic denial. I've heard 3rd-graders on the
playground say, "I could do that, but I choose not to." Really, you're
going to use 3rd-grader lies?
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kefischer
2015-06-24 16:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.
That is not complicated mathematics.
That is the only valid complaint about GR,
most people find the math to be difficult because
it involves a lot of memorizing specialized functions
that most people would never use, and would forget.
Completely disagree.
Do not speak for "most people" when you are speaking for yourself, and
when *all* mathematics is problematic for you.
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have made it clear that from YOUR perspective, ANY mathematics is
difficult mathematics, but that doesn't represent anyone but you.
Wrong, stupid, as usual, you misconstrue everything
said, I said I don't do math, not that it is difficult for me,
in fact, math is my best subject.
Oh, dude, now you're in psychotic denial. I've heard 3rd-graders on the
playground say, "I could do that, but I choose not to." Really, you're
going to use 3rd-grader lies?
No, stupid, isn't a college math class with a grade
of 100% good enough?

It might be the only class I completed other than
astronomy, but I have the transcript, and the GED where
I scored better than 94% of all high school graduates
that took the GED test.


You are not only stupid, you are an insulting SOB,
do you also insult people to their face?
Jeff Baumann
2015-06-24 16:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
It might be the only class I completed other than
astronomy, but I have the transcript, and the GED where I scored better
than 94% of all high school graduates that took the GED test.
If 94% better than those, what were they been scoring, 100%?
Post by kefischer
You are not only stupid, you are an insulting SOB,
do you also insult people to their face?
:)
kefischer
2015-06-24 18:50:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:48:06 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Baumann
Post by Jeff Baumann
Post by kefischer
It might be the only class I completed other than
astronomy, but I have the transcript, and the GED where I scored better
than 94% of all high school graduates that took the GED test.
If 94% better than those, what were they been scoring, 100%?
Post by kefischer
You are not only stupid, you are an insulting SOB,
do you also insult people to their face?
:)
No, 94 is what is called the percentile, it only
means 94% of high school graduates that took the
test did worse than me, 6% did better, because
they took calculus or trig or algebra in high school,
I did not.
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 17:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is mathematically difficult, because
it not only has to describe the motion of objects in space,
it also has to translate the motion from one coordinate
system to another in a way that corresponds to the view of
an observer.
That is not complicated mathematics.
That is the only valid complaint about GR,
most people find the math to be difficult because
it involves a lot of memorizing specialized functions
that most people would never use, and would forget.
Completely disagree.
Do not speak for "most people" when you are speaking for yourself, and
when *all* mathematics is problematic for you.
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have made it clear that from YOUR perspective, ANY mathematics is
difficult mathematics, but that doesn't represent anyone but you.
Wrong, stupid, as usual, you misconstrue everything
said, I said I don't do math, not that it is difficult for me,
in fact, math is my best subject.
Oh, dude, now you're in psychotic denial. I've heard 3rd-graders on the
playground say, "I could do that, but I choose not to." Really, you're
going to use 3rd-grader lies?
No, stupid, isn't a college math class with a grade
of 100% good enough?
What was the title of the class? College algebra?
If you have basic math skills, it's easily testable. Care to prove that
you can do basic things by showing you can do an exercise or two?
Or are you going to bluff and bluster "I can do that, but I don't want
to." Hmmmm??
Post by kefischer
It might be the only class I completed other than
astronomy, but I have the transcript, and the GED where
I scored better than 94% of all high school graduates
that took the GED test.
You are not only stupid, you are an insulting SOB,
do you also insult people to their face?
Yes, if they are being pretentious frauds, I insult them to their face.
I call them out for being pretenders and self-important jerks. Do you
think that people who are pretenders and frauds ought to be allowed to
skate unchallenged?
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 22:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Prove your mathematical chops by doing an 8th grade exercise or two.
Exercise 1: Given two equations 2x + 3y = 15 and 4x - 5y = 4, what is
the value of x?
Exercise 2: Given a sphere of radius 5 cm, what is the area of the
circle formed by passing a plane through the sphere at a distance of 2.5
cm from the center of the sphere?
Exercise 3: If the half-life of an isotope is 2400 years, at what time
will the isotope have 1/400,000th of its original concentration?
Choose any two.
Anyone who passed a college math class will be able to do these 8th
grade problems. Anyone who cannot do these exercises has either lied
about the performance in the math class or has forgotten everything
taught in that class.
So, fraud, what's it going to be? Meat or just waffles?
So, Ken, completer of a college math course with 100% and GED-earner in
the 94th percentile, can you do 8th grade math problems or not?

Hmmmm??

Bullshit much? Hmmmmm??
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-25 15:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Prove your mathematical chops by doing an 8th grade exercise or two.
Exercise 1: Given two equations 2x + 3y = 15 and 4x - 5y = 4, what is
the value of x?
Exercise 2: Given a sphere of radius 5 cm, what is the area of the
circle formed by passing a plane through the sphere at a distance of 2.5
cm from the center of the sphere?
Exercise 3: If the half-life of an isotope is 2400 years, at what time
will the isotope have 1/400,000th of its original concentration?
Choose any two.
Anyone who passed a college math class will be able to do these 8th
grade problems. Anyone who cannot do these exercises has either lied
about the performance in the math class or has forgotten everything
taught in that class.
So, fraud, what's it going to be? Meat or just waffles?
So, Ken, completer of a college math course with 100% and GED-earner in
the 94th percentile, can you do 8th grade math problems or not?
Hmmmm??
Bullshit much? Hmmmmm??
Ken, your silence is both amusing and telling.

Bluster, bluff, posture, and pretense -- your trademarks.

You say you do not do math, which is true, because you CANNOT do math.
When you get to math in a book, your brain locks up and you say "This
must just be unessential detail stuff."

You do not like your lack of skills pointed out. You want to have that
glossed over, so that you can "play physicist".

Sorry, but when even amateurs like me are disgusted by your antics, you
should not be surprised that you are not welcomed with friendly
conversation. You have to EARN respect, and all you've done is trash
your opportunities.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-25 15:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Prove your mathematical chops by doing an 8th grade exercise or two.
Exercise 1: Given two equations 2x + 3y = 15 and 4x - 5y = 4, what is
the value of x?
Exercise 2: Given a sphere of radius 5 cm, what is the area of the
circle formed by passing a plane through the sphere at a distance of 2.5
cm from the center of the sphere?
Exercise 3: If the half-life of an isotope is 2400 years, at what time
will the isotope have 1/400,000th of its original concentration?
Choose any two.
Anyone who passed a college math class will be able to do these 8th
grade problems. Anyone who cannot do these exercises has either lied
about the performance in the math class or has forgotten everything
taught in that class.
So, fraud, what's it going to be? Meat or just waffles?
So, Ken, completer of a college math course with 100% and GED-earner in
the 94th percentile, can you do 8th grade math problems or not?
Hmmmm??
Bullshit much? Hmmmmm??
Ken, your silence is both amusing and telling.
Bluster, bluff, posture, and pretense -- your trademarks.
You say you do not do math, which is true, because you CANNOT do math.
When you get to math in a book, your brain locks up and you say "This
must just be unessential detail stuff."
You do not like your lack of skills pointed out. You want to have that
glossed over, so that you can "play physicist".
Sorry, but when even amateurs like me are disgusted by your antics, you
should not be surprised that you are not welcomed with friendly
conversation. You have to EARN respect, and all you've done is trash
your opportunities.
In middle school, there was a kid who wanted to be involved in
everything, wanted to be liked, but he was too much of a self-centered
prick to be successful. I remember him coming to the city courts to
watch a game of pick-up basketball. He begged to be included in the
game, even though teams were full. He whined and yelled and complained
about people being anti-social. Finally, one guy got tired of listening
to it and stepped off, giving up his spot to let the whiner play. Play
resumed, and the new kid almost immediately got the ball passed to him.
So he runs all around the court, not bothering to dribble, not passing,
not taking a shot. He was thrilled to have the ball and be the center of
attention, and he wasn't about to give it up. Everyone else just stopped
and asked him what the hell he thought he was doing. "Playing
basketball!" he said. "But you can't run around like that. You have to
dribble, you have to pass, you have to shoot." The kid looked at the
others and said, "Let's play my way," and he started running around
again. Eventually, someone just grabbed the ball away from him. Then
everyone just stood there, glaring at him until he got the message that
he wasn't welcome unless he was going to play real basketball. The kid
stomped and turned on his heel, yelling loudly that everyone there was a
jerk and unfair and they could kiss his ass. But he didn't go home. He
just stood there on the sidelines, booing and making useless noise.

Trying to remember his name.... something Fischer, I think. At least,
that's what comes to mind.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 15:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
I find the next snippet to be a very good description
of the complexities of General Relativity, and how the
mathematics developed over an 8+ year period;
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data
with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated
with this model."
And here you've emphasized that you have no idea about mathematics at
all, because you are comparing apples and oranges, comparing a fish with
a bicycle. The mathematics of GR has absolutely nothing to do with the
mathematics of curve fitting. Good grief, it's all greek to you.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kefischer
2015-06-24 15:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
I find the next snippet to be a very good description
of the complexities of General Relativity, and how the
mathematics developed over an 8+ year period;
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data
with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated
with this model."
And here you've emphasized that you have no idea about mathematics at
all, because you are comparing apples and oranges, comparing a fish with
a bicycle. The mathematics of GR has absolutely nothing to do with the
mathematics of curve fitting. Good grief, it's all greek to you.
Stupid moron, I simply said what I said above,
and elaborated extensively, and you focus on what
you think looks like something you can tear to shreds
like a mad dog, somebody else mentioned "curve fit",
I thought it was a physicist, but it may have been PV.

Read all of the different versions of what became
known as General Relativity,and see that it was curve
fitting. Some of the papers in 1912 through 1914 have
almost the same worded title as the 1915 paper that
was called General Relativity.


And stop responding to my posts, you are too
stupid to understand anything because you read
too many psychology books, thinking they were
about philosophy.
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 16:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Stupid moron, I simply said what I said above,
and elaborated extensively, and you focus on what
you think looks like something you can tear to shreds
like a mad dog, somebody else mentioned "curve fit",
I thought it was a physicist, but it may have been PV.
Read all of the different versions of what became
known as General Relativity,and see that it was curve
fitting.
Oh you are such a goofball. You have NO idea what you're talking about,
what "curve fitting" means, or what GR does.
Post by kefischer
Some of the papers in 1912 through 1914 have
almost the same worded title as the 1915 paper that
was called General Relativity.
And stop responding to my posts, you are too
stupid to understand anything because you read
too many psychology books, thinking they were
about philosophy.
Your request is denied. You have the option of kill-filing me if you
don't want to read my responses. Something tells me, though, that you so
crave attention that the idea that you'd miss out on something said in
response to you makes you gag. Can't help it, can you?
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Jeff Baumann
2015-06-24 16:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
And here you've emphasized that you have no idea about mathematics at
all, because you are comparing apples and oranges, comparing a fish with
a bicycle. The mathematics of GR has absolutely nothing to do with the
mathematics of curve fitting. Good grief, it's all greek to you.
Stupid moron, I simply said what I said above,
and elaborated extensively,
lol
Post by kefischer
and you focus on what you think looks like
something you can tear to shreds like a mad dog, somebody else mentioned
"curve fit", I thought it was a physicist, but it may have been PV.
Before you start wordsalading about it, are you aware about what curve
fitting stands for, the algorithms used etc. Did you ever used such one in
your work in Divergent Matter?
Post by kefischer
Read all of the different versions of what became
known as General Relativity,and see that it was curve fitting. Some
of the papers in 1912 through 1914 have almost the same worded title as
the 1915 paper that was called General Relativity.
What exactly fits the curve in GR? Curve fitting is sort of filter applied
to a stream of data, idiot.
shuba
2015-06-24 20:10:56 UTC
Permalink
And stop responding to my posts
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.

What *you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.


---Tim Shuba---
kefischer
2015-06-24 20:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by shuba
And stop responding to my posts
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.
What *you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.
---Tim Shuba---
Or, I could just keep laughing at how stupid his
posts are, and how content-less your's are. :-)
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 21:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by shuba
And stop responding to my posts
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.
What *you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.
---Tim Shuba---
Or, I could just keep laughing at how stupid his
posts are, and how content-less your's are. :-)
If my posts are amusing to you, then you should welcome them, rather
than telling me to stop posting replies.

One mark of a seriously delusional person is that he never knows what he
really wants. He says the replies are fun, but that he wants them to
stop. He says they are not worth reading, but then he not only reads
every one but takes pains to respond to them. He admits to lacking
background, and then makes a point of overselling his skills. He says he
has no interest in what physicists think, but posts ideas he hopes will
get seriously examined by physicists.

Compulsions fueled by emotional needs are powerful drivers of loony
behavior.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kefischer
2015-06-24 21:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
Post by shuba
And stop responding to my posts
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.
What *you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.
---Tim Shuba---
Or, I could just keep laughing at how stupid his
posts are, and how content-less your's are. :-)
If my posts are amusing to you, then you should welcome them, rather
than telling me to stop posting replies.
Sometimes laughing makes my ribs hurt.
Post by Odd Bodkin
One mark of a seriously delusional person is that he never knows what he
he, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
really wants. He says the replies are fun, but that he wants them to
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
stop. He says they are not worth reading, but then he not only reads
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
every one but takes pains to respond to them. He admits to lacking
He
Post by Odd Bodkin
background, and then makes a point of overselling his skills. He says he
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
has no interest in what physicists think, but posts ideas he hopes will
he
Post by Odd Bodkin
get seriously examined by physicists.
Compulsions fueled by emotional needs are powerful drivers of loony
behavior.
Is that a new sci.physics subject, "he"?


Which psychology book did you get that out of?
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 21:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
Post by shuba
And stop responding to my posts
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.
What *you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.
---Tim Shuba---
Or, I could just keep laughing at how stupid his
posts are, and how content-less your's are. :-)
If my posts are amusing to you, then you should welcome them, rather
than telling me to stop posting replies.
Sometimes laughing makes my ribs hurt.
So you don't know whether you want to laugh or not.
You pretty much don't know what you want in general.
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
One mark of a seriously delusional person is that he never knows what he
he, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
really wants. He says the replies are fun, but that he wants them to
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
stop. He says they are not worth reading, but then he not only reads
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
every one but takes pains to respond to them. He admits to lacking
He
Post by Odd Bodkin
background, and then makes a point of overselling his skills. He says he
He, he
Post by Odd Bodkin
has no interest in what physicists think, but posts ideas he hopes will
he
Post by Odd Bodkin
get seriously examined by physicists.
Compulsions fueled by emotional needs are powerful drivers of loony
behavior.
Is that a new sci.physics subject, "he"?
This is sci.physics.relativity, and you've not posted anything about
relativity in this newsgroup. As a result, the subject matter is you.
Post by kefischer
Which psychology book did you get that out of?
No psych book is needed to recognize petulant fraudsters.



-- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 22:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by shuba
Others have essentially no control over what Bodkin writes. Many of
his responses are insightful and worthwhile, and he seems to be
seriously pissing off a useless, uneducated crank named Kenneth
Edmund Fischer, which provides a certain amusement factor.
What*you* could do is stop reading Bodkin's contributions here.
Or better yet just quit posting altogether, in which case he
couldn't respond. Give your physics books away to someone capable
of learning from them, as that is your only hope of making a
lasting positive contribution. Then write off your decades of
unproductive diddling in physics as the lark it was, and move on.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer is a walking bag of pretenses.
He does it because what keeps him alive is the banter. He's not
interested in the physics, he's not interested in how physicists think
or work. He's certainly not interested in the subject of this newsgroup.
He only wants to wear his party hat and be left alone to parade around
in his costume. If you pull at the party hat or mock the costume, he
will bitch about you not talking about physics. He hates being
confronted with his lack of education and inability to read the books he
owns, because he already knows he has no competency there. Sometimes he
will lie about it, sometimes he'll be plain about it, but either way
it's not something he wants to talk about.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 15:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is a mathematical theory
that is designed to predict precise motion, it is
not designed, and does not provide insight into
the actual process of gravitation.
And that is just flat-out wrong. Period, end of story. Don't know why
you repeat this nonsense.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kefischer
2015-06-24 16:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is a mathematical theory
that is designed to predict precise motion, it is
not designed, and does not provide insight into
the actual process of gravitation.
And that is just flat-out wrong. Period, end of story. Don't know why
you repeat this nonsense.
Yet you do not, and you are not able to, reference
any instance where, or how GR, even comes close to
providing insight into the actual process of gravitation.


If it did, there would not be authors writing books
and papers like;

https://archive.org/details/TheRiddleOfGravitation

by Peter G. Bergmann


Now, don't say that Bergmann doesn't understand
General Relativity, but there is nothing in that even
suggests that GR provides insight about the process
of gravitation.


Do you even understand what physicists are
talking about when they say;

"Scientists still have a tough time understanding what this force is.
This remains one of the greatest challenges of 21st Century science."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html

http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/gravity-still-a-mystery/

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_13.htm
Post by Odd Bodkin
http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

http://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

http://www.science-site.net/gravity.htm


And, tonight, I am going to watch;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1123959/

"The Mystery of Gravity" (2007)

Video | 52 min | Animation, Adventure, Family | 3 July 2007
(USA)
Odd Bodkin
2015-06-24 17:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is a mathematical theory
that is designed to predict precise motion, it is
not designed, and does not provide insight into
the actual process of gravitation.
And that is just flat-out wrong. Period, end of story. Don't know why
you repeat this nonsense.
Yet you do not, and you are not able to, reference
any instance where, or how GR, even comes close to
providing insight into the actual process of gravitation.
And that's bullshit. The actual process of gravitation IS the inertial
motion of objects in curved spacetime. This is even explained in the
first 20 pages in the books that you have lightly read.

You're response is basically, "But I don't believe that! Spacetime
cannot possible influence material objects. Only direct contact by
material objects or electromagnetic fields can influence material
objects." So essentially what you're saying that unless the physical
mechanism matches your preconceived notions, then no physical mechanism
has been offered at all.
Post by kefischer
If it did, there would not be authors writing books
and papers like;
https://archive.org/details/TheRiddleOfGravitation
by Peter G. Bergmann
Yes, I have this book and have read it. Have you read it? I mean, more
than the title.
Are you saying that he wouldn't have used "Riddle" in the title if the
physical mechanism of gravitation were known?
Post by kefischer
Now, don't say that Bergmann doesn't understand
General Relativity, but there is nothing in that even
suggests that GR provides insight about the process
of gravitation.
Do you even understand what physicists are
talking about when they say;
"Scientists still have a tough time understanding what this force is.
This remains one of the greatest challenges of 21st Century science."
Yes. This doesn't say that the physical mechanism isn't known. It is
acknowledged that how to treat gravitation quantum mechanically is not
understood, unlike other interactions (em, strong, weak interactions).
But this doesn't mean that there is no physical mechanism for gravity
presented by GR.
Post by kefischer
http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html
http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/gravity-still-a-mystery/
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_13.htm
Post by Odd Bodkin
http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity
http://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm
http://www.science-site.net/gravity.htm
And, tonight, I am going to watch;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1123959/
"The Mystery of Gravity" (2007)
And because the word "Mystery" is used in the title, like Bergmann used
"Riddle", this tells you that there is no understood mechanism for
gravity? LOL, Ken, you are such a goofball.
Post by kefischer
Video | 52 min | Animation, Adventure, Family | 3 July 2007
(USA)
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Jeff Baumann
2015-06-24 17:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
And, in the case of gravity, that was difficult.
The difficulty arises from trying to make (fit) the gravitational
process to the view of the human observer, in a reference system where
things appear to fall with an acceleration.
You are so deep in words.
Post by kefischer
There is extreme conflict between having
an apparent acceleration (in the observer's view)
and the physics required by Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
But it had to be done, by a man who used
"relativity" to explain conflicts between observer views and the
physical world.
Are you all right?
Post by kefischer
General Relativity is a mathematical theory
No, is a theory of Physics. Mathematical theories are something completely
else. You keep doing promulgating this mistake.
Post by kefischer
that is designed to predict precise motion, it is not designed, and does
not provide insight into the actual process of gravitation.
Well, it does, as explained to you so many times. There is no gravity in
GR, but curved spacetime. Putten in your terms, spacetime replaced
gravity. There is no need for "process of gravitation". See you in
Glucksburg.
b***@gmail.com
2015-06-25 20:09:23 UTC
Permalink
You've been spewing this illiterate bullshit for years. My analysis puts you in the booger eating scientific illiterate moron category of cranks.
b***@gmail.com
2015-06-25 20:14:42 UTC
Permalink
20 years of nonsense from you puts you in the booger eating scientific illiterate crank category. That's my analysis.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...