On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 9:26:34 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
You may all be interested in an article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativity
that presents some of the ideas we hear from the crackpots here. It's signed with a pseudonym, but I don't think it's the work of one of our local crackpots because it's better written. It's currently under consideration for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativity
Thank you! I'm already somewhat familiar with this editor (who appears reasonably reliable when NOT editing relativity articles) and added my
delete vote.
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 9:26:34 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:elativity
You may all be interested in an article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_r
Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativitythat presents some of the ideas we hear from the crackpots here. It's signed with a pseudonym, but I don't think it's the work of one of our local crackpots because it's better written. It's currently under consideration for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_
Thank you! I'm already somewhat familiar with this editor (who appears reasonably reliable when NOT editing relativity articles) and added my
delete vote.
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:55:11 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 9:26:34 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
You may all be interested in an article at
elativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_r
that presents some of the ideas we hear from the crackpots here. It's signed with a pseudonym, but I don't think it's the work of one of our local crackpots because it's better written. It's currently under consideration for deletion:
Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_
Thank you! I'm already somewhat familiar with this editor (who appears reasonably reliable when NOT editing relativity articles) and added my delete vote.
Has he contributed to other relativity pages?
The page under discussion seems to be quite comprehensive, although
it seems to dwell a bit overmuch on SR and the presence of matter
(even atomic level matter) having gravitational influences and their
effect on flat spacetime. Certainly, SR works perfectly well in
particle physics.
Anyway, I don't think you and I are competent to make a judgment
on this treatise. Personally, I feel that such a long dissertation
may belong in a peer-reviewed paper or arXiv, but what do I know?
OTOH, being on wikipedia, though, may give it a wider viewing, and
summarily deleting it seems like censorship, or book-burnig. I
think it's important to look at our assumptions from time to time, particularly as new evidence comes to light.
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomologue, Dono, gharnagel ...
"When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with
creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice
and motivated by pride and vanity." ? Dale Carnegie
You may all be interested in an article atativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_rel
that presents some of the ideas we hear from the crackpots here. It'snstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativity
signed with a pseudonym, but I don't think it's the work of one of our
local crackpots because it's better written. It's currently under consideration for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_Ei
On 11/13/2024 12:35 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
Any relativist chappie around that may perhaps admit that after
contemplating the inertia violation experiment done by Arindam's new
design electromagentic rail gun, Einstein's 1905 paper "On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies" which heavily depended upon the notion
of inertia for the validity of e=mc^2, gets comprehensively trashed?
The e = mc^2 is just the first term in a Taylor series expansion
of K.E.
The infinitely-many rest of them are non- or "un-" linear.
A Meissnerized ingot may experience inertial "heft",
with regards to electro-motive force, and various
super-classical concerns, with regards to theories
like those of Fritz London, for whom the most and best
initial developments in superconductivity arrived,
then as with regards to the regions and so on.
The mechanics, "is", an inertial-system.
What you do is hit the ingot to spinning first off
the compulsator to give it some heft, then launch it.
Mechanics as usually relayed is, "under-defined".
Infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration and all, ....
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:26:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
Why is that interesting? It is the definition of a crackpot.
Great pot, if only...
Touch�!
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:26:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
Why is that interesting? It is the definition of a crackpot.
Great pot, if only...
Touch�!
Thanks! But you are right too.
Nobel has great cracking powers, even posthumously,
Jan
PS, you forgot Niko Tinbergen, who even demonstated it
even in his acceptance speech.
On 11/13/2024 07:35 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:21:32 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/13/2024 12:35 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
Any relativist chappie around that may perhaps admit that after
contemplating the inertia violation experiment done by Arindam's new
design electromagentic rail gun, Einstein's 1905 paper "On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies" which heavily depended upon the notion >>>> of inertia for the validity of e=mc^2, gets comprehensively trashed?
The e = mc^2 is just the first term in a Taylor series expansion
of K.E.
Evidently the most significant one.
The infinitely-many rest of them are non- or "un-" linear.
In one dimension, the mass energy relation on a kinetic and
non-destructive basis was found by Arindam Banerjee in 1998 - it is
e=0.5mVVN(N-k) using which he transformed physics.
A Meissnerized ingot may experience inertial "heft",
with regards to electro-motive force, and various
super-classical concerns, with regards to theories
like those of Fritz London, for whom the most and best
initial developments in superconductivity arrived,
then as with regards to the regions and so on.
Word salad.
Arindam's 2 second video of inertia violation with his new design
railgun updated classical physics (minus inertia, conservation laws of
momentum and energy) and busts Einsten-Feynman physics.
The mechanics, "is", an inertial-system.
Yes, and when that is busted by experiment, then the whole thing
collapses. F=BiL or Maxwellian electrodynamics is back, with aether and
wave motion, and light speed variance. Infinite, eternal universe. Cold
cores of stellar bodies.
In short, Arindam rules from now.
Woof-woof,
Bertietaylor
What you do is hit the ingot to spinning first off
the compulsator to give it some heft, then launch it.
Mechanics as usually relayed is, "under-defined".
Infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration and all, ....
Some people say "there's no ether theory", yet we have
here a little guy named "Albert Einstein" who in his
1920 "Sidelights on Relativity" asserts that there is.
Then there it seems you're getting into the vis-viva
versus the vix-motrix, it's an entirely old-fasioned
considered gathering dust since hundreds of years ago,
though that some have turned up as relevant theoretically.
Like DesCartes' "vortices" or "subtle matter" or
Kelvin's "vortices", all the non- or un-linear
components, then here as with regards to "heft"
as in the classical mechanics the contribution
to inertia, what the merry-go-round gives.
You may all be interested in an article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativity
that presents some of the ideas we hear from the crackpots here. It's
signed with a pseudonym, but I don't think it's the work of one of our
local crackpots because it's better written. It's currently under
consideration for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_Einstein%27s_general_theory_of_relativity
Thank you! I'm already somewhat familiar with this editor (who appears reasonably reliable when NOT editing relativity articles) and added my
delete vote.
I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 57:53:51 |
| Calls: | 9,496 |
| Files: | 13,621 |
| Messages: | 6,124,470 |