Cargo wrote:Einstein is a fraud. Perhaps the greatest of all time.
Michael Mozina wrote:Cargo wrote:Einstein is a fraud. Perhaps the greatest of all time.
I personally think it's very unfortunate that the EU/PC community has such a huge chip on their shoulder toward GR theory and Einstein. It's certainly possible that Einstein was wrong about various concepts, but blaming Einstein or GR theory for the sins of LCDM "dark magic" that plague astronomy today is like blaming Alfven for magnetic reconnection models. Their mathematical formulas have simply be kludged and butchered by modern day hacks who wouldn't know a real science experiment if it hit them in the face.
Yes. Thats why i wrote my first posting above. It brings us back to Catt's Heaviside signal of E by H energy current.Sci-Phy wrote:Mainstream has no idea what gravitation is and mainstream has no idea what electricity is.
Choice between two is obvious. Much easier to hide something between tensors.
And another reason could be that electricity is completely undeveloped phenomenon in physics. There is no even definition of electric current. "The flow rate of charges" is good only for the first look. If you dig any further, you realize that electric current in conductors is NET flow of charges i.e. the sum of positive and negative charge carriers. Try to apply this to electrolytes and you going to fail - NET current in electrolytes is ZERO and carriers of only one sign is accounted for current in electrolytes. Such contradictions are endless.
Yes. Einstein's work is miss-used. But he (she really) was a fraud anyhow. And re right or wrong, its wrong, the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass (which is universally ignored)(funny that). Scientists ignore the one good bit (half good anyhow), & form into an orgy of a frothy orgasmic speaking in tongues cult over the silly bits.Cargo wrote:You're right, I apologize for the misstatement. Perhaps what I should have said, is that Einstein's work (right or wrong) is used for fraud. I think the huge GR chip is on their shoulders, not ours. After all, 100% of mainstream uses Einstein as their god sword to strike down anything counter to their dark magic theories. Therefore, I find it easier to discount Einstein completely at the get-go. This helps shine light where it is truly needed. In my feeble humble opinion.
Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.crawler wrote:..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...
No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.Aardwolf wrote:Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.crawler wrote:..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...
Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.crawler wrote:No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.Aardwolf wrote:Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.crawler wrote:..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...
Yes there are many ways that the nearness of mass could slow light, & there are ways that mass might fool us into thinking that mass slows light.Aardwolf wrote:Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.crawler wrote:No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.Aardwolf wrote:Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.crawler wrote:..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...
Gravity is due to mass. There are other forces that might add to gravity or mimic gravity, but these forces are not gravitational.Aardwolf wrote:Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.crawler wrote:No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.Aardwolf wrote:Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.crawler wrote:..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...
Sorry but this is an inferred assumption. There is no proof or experiment that confirms mass is the cause of gravity. And because science has led us down this rabbit hole we now have numerous anomalies to deal with and virtualy no astronomy progression for a century.crawler wrote:Gravity is due to mass.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest