10 Most Important Numbers

  • 125 Replies
  • 28104 Views
?

spoon

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 1370
  • ho ho ho
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2013, 02:19:41 PM »
We get it Sandy, everybody is wrong about everything.

What is so great about the 'sacred cubit'?
I work nights are get the feeling of impennding doom for things most people take for granted.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2013, 02:32:10 PM »
I prefer the qubit myself.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2013, 02:39:06 PM »
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.
Saying gravity is not a force but is something else is actually probably correct. This is the fundumental idea of general relativity.

Quote
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.)
RET accepts subquarks. Dr. Stephen Phillips would not agree with how you use them.

Quote
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'.
Time is another subject. Tesla isn't going o be the end all to an argument on time.


Quote
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.'
That was his opinion. He had alot of opinions.
Quote
...

More time arguments.

Quote
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’.
All theories can be shown to be wrong.



Quote
EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

Full of fallacies itself.


Quote
REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

Full of outdated informational and opinions. .


Quote
EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic
More reliance on the non detected ether.

On another note, Michelson - Morley experiment used electromagnetic waves.


Quote
“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.”

I'm still wondering why ether theory is so popular.
Quote
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
Theories can be shown to be wrong.


Quote
The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:
Maybe oneday someone will detect ether.





Quote
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)

Null results.

Quote
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.
Noone says that it passes every test with flying colors.

Quote
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.
Meaningless to me.

Quote
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.
Cool.

Quote
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.
Cool

Quote
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.
Not baseless and he knows theories can be shown to be wrong.

Quote
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.
Cool.

Quote
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’.
There is experiments out there with results. They are just experiments.


Quote
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?’
I'm starting to think ether belief is a religion.

Quote
Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:
Your post is so long you forgot you already posted a link and posted the same exact one. Congrats.




Quote
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.
His FTL idea was about alien waves.
Quote
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].
He called his longitudinal waves FTL waves. It is not thought he was using low frequency waves, which are known. 
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_10.htm


Quote
Tesla Patent/original paper:
Cool.


Quote
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.

 (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)
It hurts my brain every time you link to something that uses electromagnetic waves to disprove GR when you don't even believe in electromagnetic waves. This also includes Telsa's electromagnetic work.

Quote
Are you going to call Tesla, DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown lunatics as well? I hope not...do your homework ryantg.
You put words into their mouths.
[/quote]
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #123 on: June 27, 2013, 02:45:19 PM »
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".
Where did he say the gyroscope harnessed the ether to become lighter?



Quote
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.
Where did DePalma say the spinning ball harnessed the ether? Why doesn't the non spinning ball harness ether?

Quote
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.
Neither one of them made that claim. It was just you.


Quote
...
outdated info.

Quote
Imagine what would happen to your remaining bit of sanity if we were to debate the Tunguska event...
Nothing, because you cannot comprehend that light can go around corners.

Still waiting.
Still waiting, still. Maybe you should finally just give up and acknowledge electromagnetic waves. Seeing is how you keep using them for arguments.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 02:47:38 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #124 on: June 27, 2013, 06:35:28 PM »
Sandokhan what the hell are you going on about?

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

Usually this would be sound advice, but somehow Insanokhan manages success every time anyway.  It can actually be amusing seeing someone (such as Sokarul just above for example) respond to him and realize that he actually read the entire post, and put thought into why it was wrong.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2013, 08:22:01 PM »
Usually this would be sound advice, but somehow Insanokhan manages success every time anyway.  It can actually be amusing seeing someone (such as Sokarul just above for example) respond to him and realize that he actually read the entire post, and put thought into why it was wrong.

Sokarul spends all this time and effort on big posts but he is always incorrect. I bet he still believes that carrots don't dissolve in water. His scientific reach exceeds his grasp.