Webbman wrote:in this world lies are more important than the truth. There is no science only the religion of science. Every good scientist is robbed and dismantled in some way. This is the history of it.
Zyxzevn wrote:I always found it strange that Einstein's ideas were accepted without
adaptions or considerations.
silvanelf wrote:Zyxzevn wrote:I always found it strange that Einstein's ideas were accepted without
adaptions or considerations.
How did you come to this strange conclusion? The opposite was the case.
Please take a look at this article:
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Was Initially Met With a Universal Eye-Roll"
https://curiosity.com/topics/einsteins-special-theory-of-relativity-was-initially-met-with-a-universal-eye-roll-curiosity/
Zyxzevn wrote:If I look at the history, Einstein's theories were suddenly pushed through,
without much questioning.
I am trying to find out why.
It seemed to have happened during and after the war.
Especially with the atomic bomb, which is seen as a result of relativity.
This smells like war propaganda mixed with science.
Is it war propaganda?
Or was it due to the "popularity" of the atomic bomb?
Where his opponents dead or locked up?
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
Did one school take control?
Or did the "sceptics" start a church of relativity?
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
I think the failure of aether theories played an important role. Between 1820 (or even earlier) and 1905 many prominent physicists tried to develop an aether theory consistent with experimental facts, but all these theories failed. The theory of a "dragged aether" failed too, not just the "static aether" theory -- but for different reasons.
Static aether was wrong, & dragged aether was wrong, however the MMX's were not null with regard to aether itself. Miller eventually identified the background aetherwind in 1932 i think. Cahill provided the correct calibration in 2002. Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) MMX done on 22 June 1970 in Obninsk (but not reported in English until say 2010) showed a background aetherwind varying tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during 24hrs.Zyxzevn wrote:I also agree with that. The "aether" variant theories were very popular and failing. So many moved to the relativity train.I think the failure of aether theories played an important role. Between 1820 (or even earlier) and 1905 many prominent physicists tried to develop an aether theory consistent with experimental facts, but all these theories failed. The theory of a "dragged aether" failed too, not just the "static aether" theory -- but for different reasons.Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
SR & GR say that length ticking apparent speed etc are observer dependent -- a silly idea -- so of course u must get paradoxes (altho SR & GR dont give real answers & hencely u can say that there are no paradoxes because paradoxes only belong to reality).Zyxzevn wrote:But special relativity also introduced conflicts, and general relativity too. Somehow I don't see them answered or tested thoroughly.
. The Ehrenfest paradox is not a paradox because the differential relativistic change in length (tangential versus radial) is logical, it happens, it is real (if FitzGerald Voigt Lorentz Larmor length contraction is real). Einsteinian SR length contraction is not real, & can be ignored here.Zyxzevn wrote:The Ehrenfest is an example, and also those by Crothers.
Yes there is no such thing as time dilation, what we have is ticking dilation. Time does not exist, or it does, it is the present moment, & this moment is universal.Zyxzevn wrote:Sadly, for some reason it is against the mainstream to test the edge conditions
of these things. The tests that I see are usually testing against the popular "aether" variants. It is just circle-jerking. To test something you need a theory/model that is may also fit the results (or part of the results). Like: Does speed change time or only the speed of the physical processes?
The satellite Hipparcos has given us the best proof that bending of visible light near the Sun is indeed 1.75 arcsec -- Hipparcos measured 1.745 arcsec (at the limb)(in effect) based on measurements taken at over 45 deg from the Sun (ie well away from the worst of the coronal plasma).Zyxzevn wrote:The edge-conditions that I think that are interesting are: Does gravitational bending still hold up now we know (See Skyscholar on youtube) that the plasma of the sun extends much further than predicted?
I think Reg Cahill gives an aetheric explanation.Zyxzevn wrote:Is the failure of gravity probe B (?) actually a null-result? Why do the different measurements of G give different results?
For some good ideas look up Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe. And Reg Cahill's process physics.Zyxzevn wrote:For me it appears that physics is in a stand-still with these theories. I see no clear explanations, no good educational movies on youtube explaining everything in detail. It is just circle-jerking of old concepts. Twins, clocks etc. Which means that the scientific progress has stopped for some reason. For me the reason seems the lack of healthy skepticism and a slightly wrong mathematical model to begin with.
Hammar's X showed that aether is not dragged. It was a good X, & not well understood at the time, & even less so today.Zyxzevn wrote:So that is why I look for a reason for what caused this change. And when it happened. In my opinion it started around the 2nd world war (1938). It also coincides with some "aether dragging" tests (Hammar 1935). I think that these are all factors that influenced this attitude.
Yes Crothers (& Engelhardt) show that Einstein's claim that two events simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in any other frame is according to Einstein's postulates properly stated to be that any two events can be shown to be simultaneous in any & every frame if a suitable observer is chosen (ie including lightning flashes say one million years apart) -- HAHAHAAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAA.Zyxzevn wrote:Crothers is very good in explaining exactly where things are going wrong mathematically. So his topics are good directions to investigate further.
crawler wrote:Yes Crothers (& Engelhardt) show that Einstein's claim that two events simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in any other frame is according to Einstein's postulates properly stated to be that any two events can be shown to be simultaneous in any & every frame if a suitable observer is chosen (ie including lightning flashes say one million years apart) -- HAHAHAAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAA.
Neither. It was based on the experimentation of naturally fissioning material and chain reactions in the 1930's. They didn't even initially know that the atoms were splitting, that was only assumed to be happening as they progressed. Enough of any unstable material massed together causes it to go supercritical. Therefore;webolife wrote:But one has to ask, was the production of the A-bomb actually dependent upon Einstein, or simply inspired by him?
Return to The Future of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest