10 Most Important Numbers

  • 125 Replies
  • 17475 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #90 on: June 21, 2013, 07:11:53 AM »
Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: an infinite number of decimals does not exist in nature, the real physical world (quantum level measurements).

Borel proved clearly that real numbers do not actually exist: they are used in a pure mathematical context (where you can continue to calculate further decimals).

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5136
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #91 on: June 21, 2013, 07:16:08 AM »
The fact that they exist as a mathematical concept tells me they exist.   Thank you and good day.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #92 on: June 21, 2013, 07:25:52 AM »
Completely wrong: most mathematical concepts are abstract inventions, which do not exist in the real world.

Nikola Tesla:

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Read again Borel's proof of the inexistence of real numbers.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #93 on: June 21, 2013, 07:36:28 AM »
Your argument is irrelevant, Levee. It doesn't matter if irrational numbers don't exist in reality.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5136
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #94 on: June 21, 2013, 07:38:52 AM »
The simple fact that if I need 5, 10, 100 or , 1000 significant figures and I can still go further if needed tells me all I need to know.   If you cannot express sqrt2 as a finite number without truncation or approximation then it is not finite. If you truncate numbers 1.75 could be 2 or 1.8, both of which are not 1.75.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2013, 07:52:35 AM »
How many times do we have to go through this?

Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: this is the exact point Kronecker made to his contemporaries (Cantor and Dedekind).

Do your homework and read:

http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man

Your thousands of significant figures/decimals exist only on paper, with no connection to the real world; these significant figures can be obtained, in the case of the square root of 2, by continued fractions approximations.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #96 on: June 21, 2013, 08:17:26 AM »
Here are more assertions coming from roundy/raunchy's brain:

The movement of the celestial bodies as we see them on earth can be accurately predicted using gravity.

Perhaps butt cheeks are a better description of roundy's brain hemispheres.


Did you know that our own official heliocentric planetary system (together with the Sun) travels at some 20 km/s toward the star Vega?

This fact means you have to make a basic choice (no RE can escape this quandary): both Kepler's first law and the fact that the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix, cannot be true.

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

Therefore, Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.

The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.


And of course, you had no idea about the faint young sun paradox before you were fortunate enough to read my messages:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927


Here is the barometric pressure paradox document:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UcRuHzsweSq


A clear and absolute violation of the law of attractive gravity, which, in your insane and delusional universe, explains the movement of the celestial bodies.

If we go straight to the Jupiter infrared radiation paradox, I will reach, of course, the 2 minute limit I proposed to you earlier.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #97 on: June 21, 2013, 09:12:22 AM »
How many times do we have to go through this?

Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: this is the exact point Kronecker made to his contemporaries (Cantor and Dedekind).

Do your homework and read:

http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man

Your thousands of significant figures/decimals exist only on paper, with no connection to the real world; these significant figures can be obtained, in the case of the square root of 2, by continued fractions approximations.

It seems you have latched onto one out-dated scientist and effectively ignored all contending opinions. Who cares about Leopold Kronecker? I certainly don't, for every one of these guys there are tens of thousands of mathematicians who have lived or who are living today who hold a completely opposite worldview.

I think every time you link multiple page paragraphs of work from a single scientist or mathematician I will equally link you a plethora of sources from well known mathematicians who hold the exact opposite view. Then you might see what it feels like to be in our position.

You should feel extremely humble that there are any people who are willing to spend the time and effort reading what you write and refuting your claims because the scientific and mathematical community could not care less, those are the people you should be trying to convince, not a couple of people who believe in a flat earth and those who joined this forum for a laugh and to debate.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #98 on: June 21, 2013, 09:30:04 AM »
Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.

No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate.  I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

spoon

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 1370
  • ho ho ho
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #99 on: June 21, 2013, 09:35:32 AM »
I work nights are get the feeling of impennding doom for things most people take for granted.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5136
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #100 on: June 21, 2013, 09:46:38 AM »
I just came to the realization that every measurement on Earth is actually irrational since there is no perfect square,  circle,  our triangle.   You can continue to measure with more precise tools, and you'll continue to measure some fraction of a difference.  Therefore I'm claiming rational numbers do not exist.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #101 on: June 21, 2013, 10:27:52 AM »
No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate.  I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.

How ironic since you subscribe to numerous irrational and baseless conspiracies along with the idea that the earth is flat even though it is demonstrably spherical. If Sandokhan is at 100/100 on the insane-o-meter, you are around 75. Less of the contemptuous comments.

*

sokarul

  • 18042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #102 on: June 21, 2013, 01:04:06 PM »
Quote from: sandokhan
Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.
Time to put up or shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_atomic_emission_spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_fluorescence
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #103 on: June 21, 2013, 02:51:19 PM »
Wasn't there a "FET scientists" group, that got lost due to lack of interest? I shall call al that people willing to do experiments, and unite against the greatest weirdo believer ever: Sandokhan. C'mon, people.

Also, Shandy, Relativity
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #104 on: June 21, 2013, 03:24:49 PM »
No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate.  I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.

How ironic since you subscribe to numerous irrational and baseless conspiracies along with the idea that the earth is flat even though it is demonstrably spherical. If Sandokhan is at 100/100 on the insane-o-meter, you are around 75. Less of the contemptuous comments.

I was expecting somebody to say this eventually, and I'm not surprised it was you.

Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else.  I don't subscribe to any baseless conspiracies.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 03:27:36 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #105 on: June 22, 2013, 12:44:12 AM »
ryantg, at the present time, you are in no position to debate with me on any subject (science, philosophy, psychology, to name just a few).

As I have demonstrated to you very clearly, you lack the scientific knowledge to even dream to discuss with me the theory of relativity, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics (take your pick from manifold theory, to global bifurcation theory, to continuum mechanics)...

I have already proven that you have insane beliefs:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506160.html#msg1506160

You had no knowledge about the original Maxwell equations: this alone disqualifies you as a serious scientist, there is no meter than can measure your ignorance.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506806.html#msg1506806

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1507839.html#msg1507839

To call the mutilation of the original Maxwell equations as an "improvement" shows your flimsy scientific background, certainly you shouldn't be posting here.

Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.


It takes less than a few minutes to debunk your false beliefs/theories...

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #106 on: June 22, 2013, 02:24:30 AM »

I was expecting somebody to say this eventually, and I'm not surprised it was you.

I wouldn't of said anything until you expressed contempt on everybody replying to Sandokhan.

Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else.  I don't subscribe to any baseless conspiracies.

Yes, i'm sure you don't. *cough* satellites don't exist *cough*...

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #107 on: June 22, 2013, 02:32:20 AM »
ryantg, at the present time, you are in no position to debate with me on any subject (science, philosophy, psychology, to name just a few).

As I have demonstrated to you very clearly, you lack the scientific knowledge to even dream to discuss with me the theory of relativity, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics (take your pick from manifold theory, to global bifurcation theory, to continuum mechanics)...

"To call the mutilation of the original Maxwell equations as an "improvement" shows your flimsy scientific background, certainly you shouldn't be posting here."

Sandokhan, I could be Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind or any other physicist and you'd still keep saying I lack the scientific knowledge to talk about these ideas because you don't agree with the mainstream view.

I don't lack the scientific knowledge, you could ask any physicist about the Maxwell equations (except maybe for those idiots you keep linking to) and they would say they've been improved. I've sat in lecture halls where a physicist at Cambridge University has talked about the history of these equations and I explicitly remember him saying they were improved and they were worked upon, because that is what science is, science progresses.

Now do I trust you? A mentally ill lunatic who posts on a flat earth forum trying to convince people of his radical new ideas, or a cambridge physicist?

I think anybody could answer that.

I'll always remember an interview with Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologists from the California Institute of Technology and he was asked a question: "Do you get many messages from cranks trying to convince you of their ideas?" and his reply was " I have already gotten contacted once since this conversation began...".
It is a poignant reminder Sandokhan that you are not the only person out there doing this, there are thousands of people exactly like you who believe they have built this theory for everything and everybody else is delusional.
The fact of the matter is, your ideas are never going to gain a grasp in the scientific community. I suggest you give up now personally, you've spent way too much time on this.

Let the new theories and discoveries come from those who actually have a scientific background in the field they have researched their whole entire life. Not you who believes he is a master of everything.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:42:28 AM by RyanTG »

*

sokarul

  • 18042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #108 on: June 22, 2013, 08:20:21 AM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35365
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #109 on: June 22, 2013, 08:43:20 AM »
You are beneath levee's notice.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #110 on: June 22, 2013, 09:12:00 AM »

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf

So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.


Clear enough for you?


The quoted link is well worth a look. I've just had a quick shufty and it seems to be pointing towards a paradox in the definition of a real number.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 09:29:26 AM by mathsman »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2013, 01:10:32 PM »
If real numbers were to be proven to be not so real after all, would that make them any less useful?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2013, 02:32:54 PM »
If real numbers were to be proven to be not so real after all, would that make them any less useful?

Clearly. 1+1=1

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2013, 05:58:47 AM »
ryantg, I repeat: you are no scientist.

Here is what you wrote:

Yes a photon is massless, the speed of light c is most definitely a constant (under known conditions) and yes the general theory of relativity is always going to be correct.

Fanaticism is a sure sign of lunacy.

But in fact the general theory of relativity IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Your Cambrigde lectures cannot help you sheer ignorance.

Please attend Dr. Stephen Phillips' lectures on subquarks at Cambrige (he lectured extensively at Cambridge; you might try to contact him and he will confirm that everything I wrote is true.)

Let me prove to you your monstruous level of ignorance re: GTR/STR.

The speed of light was not known to be constant, not in 1877, not in 1905, not today.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.





http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


Are with me ryantg, so far? In our direct debates, I proved your every point to be utterly wrong.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”




ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Rest assured ryantg: if I were to come to Cambridge to lecture on any of the subjects discussed here, the audience would be enthralled.


Your 10% of actual scientific knowledge will get you nowhere in any direct debates with me.


Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm



Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)


Are you going to call Tesla, DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown lunatics as well? I hope not...do your homework ryantg.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2013, 06:17:49 AM »
What are we going to do with you ryantg?

Do not attend further Cambridge lectures: listen carefully, you might learn something.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.




Exactly the findings mentioned by none other than Sir Isaac Newton:

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

What a lunatic this Newton...to state that terrestrial gravity is due to the PRESSURE EXERTED BY ETHER.

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.

Imagine what would happen to your remaining bit of sanity if we were to debate the Tunguska event...

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2013, 06:27:15 AM »
There's no way I'm reading that. someone tl;dr it, please.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2013, 06:30:07 AM »

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf

So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.


Clear enough for you?


The quoted link is well worth a look. I've just had a quick shufty and it seems to be pointing towards a paradox in the definition of a real number.

mathsman, go back and read the masters of mathematics (end of the 19th century, early 20th century).

Here is another gem for you.

Contrary to current beliefs held by the researchers in manifold/differential topology theories, the quest for the fourth dimension meant a very different thing 100 years ago.

Both Kaluza and Klein understood that the fourth dimension is curled up in a circle of a very small radius, in fact the smallest radius possible.

Therefore, the fourth dimension is located at the radius level of the boson/antiboson, exactly what Maxwell's original equations state.

the original Maxwell equations are based on a scalar wave theory, and on a variable speed of light concept.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!


Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

What electrical engineers work with today, is a subset of a higher-topology EM. The four "Maxwell's Equations" taught today in electrical engineering are actually an over-simplified subset of Maxwell's original work. The pruning was done by Oliver Heaviside in the late 19th century; Heaviside took Maxwell's original equations, written in Hamilton's quaternions (related to what we nowadays call spinors), and "simplified" them by lopping off the scalar part of the complex numbers, leaving the easy-to-work-with vector part intact-- which radio engineers loved.

When Heaviside threw out the scalar part of the quaternionic EM equation, he unknowingly threw out the possibility of unifying gravitation with electromagnetism-- which has been a holy grail for scientists since Einstein himself wrestled with the problem. That's because the scalar part of the quaternion was the part that captured or modeled the "stress on the aether"-- which leads to curving/warping spacetime a la Einstein. We CAN unify gravity with EM, and convert back and forth between them, if we understand how vectors and scalars relate to one another and what the ramifications are.

ryantg...you should be ashamed: before you read my messages, you had no idea about the original Maxwell equations, please give alms and prayers for having had the chance to do so.


conqer, do not show your true colors here: two pages of the best proofs that GTR/STR do not exist certainly are worth your time...I tried to keep the material to a minimum though...stop complaining: at the MS/PhD level you are required to read hundreds of pages (if not thousands), are you telling us you cannot read even two pages of the best bibliographical references?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:38:38 AM by sandokhan »

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2013, 06:53:21 AM »
I've had a read and a little think about that link and I'm not convinced that irrational numbers are substantially different from any other numbers; different definition certainly, computationally different certainly but still just a point on a line. It may be down to my ignorance or my outlook on mathematics but as soon as somebody starts going 'meta' with mathematics I get bored very quickly.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2013, 07:18:18 AM »
I wonder if Sanokahn realizes how many numbers (rational, irrational, etc.) his favorite alternative scientists had to use to prove the mainstream wrong. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2013, 01:43:38 PM »
Sandokhan what the hell are you going on about?

If you're going to troll don't make it so obvious.