Anti Relativity

a reply to: GetHyped

Dr. Ning Li proved that to be incorrect in my own opinion.

As soon as she found some novel mathematics, the ARL scooped her up.

LOL, "lattice ions", of all things.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You have to deduct 7 microseconds from the overall number for the time dilation aspect of the atomic clocks on the satellites.

Then why would the clocks run faster?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: Nochzwei

Mate. Do you not understand that the proof is in the pudding? GPS works. No one needs to show any maths...it works.
It's like quantum mechanics. It's weird as hell...but it works.

Lol mate do you know why it works?
US navy flies the gps sats. Do you think anyone there can answer my ques posed to you as I know no one from ats can answer ?

I am not asking for an analogy.
Am asking for actual equations from GR and the values applied to those equations.
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Case is all bunk and you have gobbled it all up?
Bet on Einstein ? Anyday mate.
a reply to: mbkennel

a reply to: AthlonSavage
“From New York Herald Tribune (September 11, 1932)

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”

If the above quote from the New York Herald is the basis for your argument that Tesla was smarter than Einstein, AthlonSavage, then I’m afraid you lose. All I get from that statement is either a) Tesla had not read Einstein’s paper on General Relativity or b) Tesla read the paper, but didn’t understand it and missed the whole point. Einstein never suggested that space itself curved, or that it had any properties associated with it. That notion is a misconception created by the media and ingrained into the psyche of the general population. It was intended to make a very difficult concept more easily understood by the average Joe. This misconception, by the way, has persisted to this day; it’s one of the concepts that underclassmen studying physics have to abandon in order to understand the theory. In a nutshell, the following is what Einstein proposed regarding the nature of space in his paper on General Relativity:

The way particles and forces influence each other is expressed mathematically as geometric relationships, describing how the particles, etc being measured occupy the volume of space. When GR uses the term “space-time curvature”, it’s describing how gravity influences the matter residing in space and not that space itself has a curvature. GR is strictly a theory of geometry and does not state that space has a fabric or substance or any other physical property. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within space-time.

I don’t know why it is that certain folks seem to hate Einstein so much. It’s almost as though they’re angry with him; almost hostile, actually. All I can say is if you disrespect him and his ideas so much, and think he was so completely wrong, then let’s see your solutions. Talk is cheap; especially when it has no foundation or facts to back it up. Otherwise, you’re just putting your monumental ignorance on display.

Ciao...

PS: By the way, if Einstein simply “stole” his ideas from others, as some like to say, then why did it shake up the scientific world so much when he proposed them? Wouldn’t it have been old news? That’s just a lame argument and shows an ignorance of how science works. Granted, Tesla was a gifted genius, but it’s ridiculous to compare the two. What is this, a competition? Geniuses often disagree with each other, just like the rest of us. As a mater of fact, geniuses can also be flat wrong from time to time. Just because Tesla was so terribly wrong about relativity is no reason to attack/disrespect him, though. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water...

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Then why would the clocks run faster?

They are further from the mass of the earth.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

I am not asking for an analogy.
Am asking for actual equations from GR and the values applied to those equations.

The analogy had the actual math from Relativity, did you do the equations?

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: Nochzwei

Mate. Do you not understand that the proof is in the pudding? GPS works. No one needs to show any maths...it works.
It's like quantum mechanics. It's weird as hell...but it works.

Lol mate do you know why it works?
US navy flies the gps sats. Do you think anyone there can answer my ques posed to you as I know no one from ats can answer ?

listen buddy...its very simple. YOU are making the outrageous claim...why dont YOU provide proof for it. We dont have to defend ourselevs since our maths is open for anyone top look into. The fact that no one has, does not mean its wrong, it just means its bloody complicated and no one has the time or the knowledge to get the info you want.

Just to be clear:

- No one has to provide you with anything. You are makign the claim, you need to provide US with proof
- That you havent is very telling
- That no one has not written down the equations you want is in NO way indicative of the physics being wrong and for you to think that and use that as proof that you are right is INCREDIBLY childish and akin to the class bully in the playground.

Grow up and show us you are right.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

A lot of scientists feel relativity can't be complete because of the prediction of infinite density in a black hole, etc, so not only would they accept a better theory, they are actually looking for one. But it's really hard to come up with a new theory that matches all previous observations and experiments better than the current theory.

Well ironically enough I suspect the physicists have missed trick with GR when applied to black holes. As you approach a black hole (in theory using GR) time slows down so much so that infinite velocity would be required for anything to move towards the centre. Which means it doesn't. Also forgotten is that when an event horizon forms the force of gravity inside the collapsing star is LOWER. This means time is a gradient from normal at the centre to zero at the event horizon, exactly the same gradient as outside the collapsing star! It is not a black hole but a black sphere IMHO and Einstein is still correct.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Then why would the clocks run faster?

They are further from the mass of the earth.

Lol make up your mind. Time compression(faster), Time dilation(slower). So further from the earth is which?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nochzwei

I am not asking for an analogy.
Am asking for actual equations from GR and the values applied to those equations.

The analogy had the actual math from Relativity, did you do the equations?

Lol, I asked you for the equations.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Then why would the clocks run faster?

They are further from the mass of the earth.

Lol make up your mind. Time compression(faster), Time dilation(slower). So further from the earth is which?

Do you think that because ordinary members of the public make mistakes about GR and the complicated maths, that that makes the physics wrong?

is that really the foundation of your argument? Are you not embarrassed?

Shifting goal posts again eh. Its evident that you have also gobbled up the ridiculous GR like the MS.
Dunno, if you have read the op or not.
a reply to: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Shifting goal posts again eh. Its evident that you have also gobbled up the ridiculous GR like the MS.
Dunno, if you have read the op or not.
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Burden of proof is on you my friend. So put up...come on, impress us with your groundbreaking maths.

You DO understand that the burden of proof is on you, right?

Listen, im assuming you are a teenager at school..which is fine. But you really do need to read up a bit more and get educated.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Lol make up your mind. Time compression(faster), Time dilation(slower). So further from the earth is which?

Huh? They are running slower in relation to those on the ground despite the appearance of them running faster.

This is what Special Relativity predicted and the maths support.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! Source

a reply to: GetHyped

Of course he was way smarter that that idiot Einstein.
What do you use today that directly came out of GR?
Almost all technology we use today was 'invented' in the pre-einstein era.
It is foolish to say that Tesla, Edison, Faraday, Steinmetz,... were just quacks.

Those who discredit Tesla's work always bring up the 'pigeon story' but they never bring up fact that Einstein married his cousin because this is all normal.

What experiments are you talking about?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

What proof do you have? Complicated math?
Well buddy here is something new, nature doesn't do math.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: 3danimator2014

What proof do you have? Complicated math?
Well buddy here is something new, nature doesn't do math.

wow deep. 100% wrong...but deep.

Nature might not do maths, but for us to interprate it and mimick it, we need to do maths.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Thank you.
Why is this wrong? Where is your proof.

Ow yes because all you guys lost rational thinking. That explains it indeed.