It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Relativity

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.


If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )
edit on 23-4-2015 by Nochzwei because: spelling




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The E = mc square formula is in a truest sense a relativist formula. You can look at it and say to accelerate an object to speed of light you need infinite energy, and hence the idea the mass is expanding as speed increases toward light speed.

OR

you can look it as the other way round. That the Mass property descreases as an object approaches speed of light and therefore does not require an impossible energy requirement. The mass in other words shrinks to a size magnitudes smaller than what it as at its Relative start point. I believe it is this one as the correct interpretation as it lines up with the experimental observation there are small atomic particles moving through the space we occupy and it also allows explain the phenomenon of Ufos.


I think we may of been sold the first story for good reason to make us believe the world we live in has distinctive limits/barriers we cant break, which not unsurprising is the mindset which needs to be taught to cattle people.

edit on 23-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
The E = mc square formula is in a truest sense a relativist formula. You can look at it and say to accelerate an object to speed of light you need infinite energy, and hence the idea the mass is expanding as speed increases toward light speed.

OR

you can look it as the other way round. That the Mass property descreases as an object approaches speed of light and therefore does not require an impossible energy requirement. The mass in other words shrinks to a size magnitudes smaller than what it as at its Relative start point. I believe it is this one as the correct interpretation as it lines up with the experimental observation there are small atomic particles moving through the space we occupy and it also allows explain the phenomenon of Ufos.


I think we may of been sold the first story for good reason to make us believe the world we live in has distinctive limits/barriers we cant break, which not unsurprising is the mindset which needs to be taught to cattle people.


Hmmm...shame your little paranoid thinkign has one fatal flaw. Science is open to anyone. Anyone can check the maths and say "wait a second, this isnt right!"

Unless you are suggesting that TPTB are controlling EVERYONE who understands general Relativity and maths?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.


If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )


yeah, no one is going to waste their time playing your game buddy.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.


If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )


yeah, no one is going to waste their time playing your game buddy.
Game? Yeah right,
Put your money where your mouth is buddy. Go ahd and answer the questions, if you can, since you made similar claims, isn't it. I am an engineer and need something solid and not some flimsy talk in the air



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.


If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )


yeah, no one is going to waste their time playing your game buddy.
Game? Yeah right,
Put your money where your mouth is buddy. Go ahd and answer the questions, if you can, since you made similar claims, isn't it. I am an engineer and need something solid and not some flimsy talk in the air



If you are an engineer the you can back up your claims with the maths. I'll say it once again. No one here other than you is making the bold claim that GR is wrong. It is 100% up to you to back up your claims with proof. You have not provided a single shred of any.

If it isn't a game the back up your extraordinary claims. Mine are backed up by GPS satellites and caesium clocks proving time dilation.

If this isn't a game. Stop pretending you are 12. And for the love of god...back up your claims.

If I claim that pink unicorns exist...its not up to you to prove me wrong. It's up to me to prove my claims are true. Same thing here...so, man up and back em up.

The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you have to back anything up is slightly worrying.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Are there theories which

a) predict all the effects currently observed and attributed to General Relativity?
b) fit in better theoretically than GR?
c) are not equivalent reformulations of GR?

I am unaware of any which are successful and useful.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
a reply to: mbkennel

Ok, thanks for insiders.

What keeps the energy once released a substance when we know photon has no mass?

In other words, once photon has been emitted what keeps it as concealed particle while it travels?


I don't know what a concealed particle means, but there is no better answer to "what keeps it" any more than "what keeps an electron being an electron". Lack of reason to change it to something else?

At the core, the answer is "photons are elementary particles and the elementary laws of physics in the Standard Model give no additional reason"



Why you ascribe light as a flux of individual particles?

How come the light constitutes flux of individual packets of energy?


Because very precise experiments show it to be so. And these days, some not so precise experiments, namely digital photography. The CCD elements have high sensitivity to individual photons and the individual photon nature of light becomes visible on consumer-grade equipment, appearing as noise level. Some of the image noise is electronic fluctuation in chips, but other part of it is fluctuation in photon counts during the exposure. This is a reason why larger 'full-frame' CCD image sensors give better results: the are more photons per pixel.



How come those individual packets of energy held together when my eyes 'sees them'?


They're a packet of electric and magnetic field oscillations, which has a known energy.

And it's more like the combination of quantum mechanics (where the interaction with measurement apparatus causes a change) in addition.

Your questions don't have deeper answers other than 'this is how quantum mechanics of elementary particles works'



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

There are, yes. ...and there is a very good reason you are unaware of them.

Scientific research costs time and money. Someone has to pay for it. Whatever comes out of that research is owned by whoever put up the money for it. Mainstream science is quite often only full of the scientific research people don't care to give away for free.

It is the research that people don't want to give away for free that you are unaware of, because it is valuable intellectual property. It is the most valuable intellectual property in the world when the research is so far ahead of the curve, that it would blow your mind.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

This is not how science works. Go take a tour of your local university campus, send an email to your friendly neighbourhood scientists or something, not make stuff up out of whole cloth.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Weareone,

This is not how science works. Science is open to anyone. You are 100% wrong



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.


If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )


yeah, no one is going to waste their time playing your game buddy.
Game? Yeah right,
Put your money where your mouth is buddy. Go ahd and answer the questions, if you can, since you made similar claims, isn't it. I am an engineer and need something solid and not some flimsy talk in the air



If it isn't a game the back up your extraordinary claims. Mine are backed up by GPS satellites and caesium clocks proving time dilation.

Thread is about the title and scientist being warned from denying Einstein's gr. so read the thread and your posts and back up your claims as asked, otherwise what you have been posting in this thread, is all bunk



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. There is a whole other scientific world out there that you have no clue about. Hidden from the public eye.

That mainstream BS from universities and your friendly neighborhood scientists is like 100 years behind. As much as you may think it is current cutting edge science, it's not.

I know what you are thinking... Let me tell you, "peer review" is the most damaging aspect to mainstream and current science ever. You may laugh at that, because on the surface peer review seems like a good idea. But the reality is, many huge scientific breakthroughs have been missed and completely abandoned because some peer review discredited certain theories to a point where they were discarded all together.

What I am telling you seems hard for you to grasp, which is confusing to me, because you would think on a conspiracy minded forum you people would understand.
edit on 23-4-2015 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Weareone,

This is not how science works. Science is open to anyone. You are 100% wrong


No, not all science is open to anyone. You guys really have no idea what goes on outside of public domain... its quite funny.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )



Why? Is there some part of basic time dilation equations you don't agree with? Take t = t* sqrt(1-(2GM/Rc^2)) or one for Earth's surface dilation and plug in your own numbers. (2GR/c^2) If GR is wrong then say where it's wrong?! I could go to any physics site and get those equations with values? There are explanations and examples of these GR corrections for GPS all over the place. And you do not need space flight examples, there is a paper online explaining how a clock up on a TOWER runs faster? Do you need source material from experts? I'm fine with posting links to published papers.

You did not answer my question either, which postulate of GR do you disagree with?

There are corrections for low satellites and corrections for high satellites. Different theories are involved so you need to be more specific.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Imagine my surprise when I found on the internet, some notable scientists have been warned against denying GR. So it Seems there is definitely some reason to keep the GR dogma alive by the ptb, whether of this earth entirely or otherwise.
www.anti-relativity.com...
Visit the link, an interesting read indeed.



The first page I read already has misleading statements:

"In addition to these completely invalidating facts, the expectations of the experiment were based upon a third reference point called "Proper Time". As I have discussed in length elsewhere, introduction of this extra reference point takes relativity out of the equation because it is analogous to adding a hidden Aether.(universal reference frame)"

Not every frame is relative anyways, it applies to "special" cases, hence the name...

You still need Lorenz transformations for proper time. It's not hard to read about it a little and see that it does not violate relativity.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
What I am telling you seems hard for you to grasp, which is confusing to me, because you would think on a conspiracy minded forum you people would understand.
Even on a conspiracy forum, you've got to cite some evidence to support your conspiratorial claims. Even the 911 truthers did that, though it wasn't very good evidence, but at least they tried.

You aren't even making any attempt to back up your claims.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Go Ahd and put these equations in a post and values applied to obtain gps correction and if indeed these equations are used for space flight, then the values to these as well( pick any fictional or known space flight )



Why? Is there some part of basic time dilation equations you don't agree with? Take t = t* sqrt(1-(2GM/Rc^2)) or one for Earth's surface dilation and plug in your own numbers. (2GR/c^2) If GR is wrong then say where it's wrong?! I could go to any physics site and get those equations with values? There are explanations and examples of these GR corrections for GPS all over the place. And you do not need space flight examples, there is a paper online explaining how a clock up on a TOWER runs faster? Do you need source material from experts? I'm fine with posting links to published papers.

You did not answer my question either, which postulate of GR do you disagree with?

There are corrections for low satellites and corrections for high satellites. Different theories are involved so you need to be more specific.
Read the thread in my signature about bending or unbending of space.
There is time compression on the surface of earth , not dilation. Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to GR



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Weareone,

This is not how science works. Science is open to anyone. You are 100% wrong


No, not all science is open to anyone. You guys really have no idea what goes on outside of public domain... its quite funny.


Yes, science is open to anyone. Anyone can research anything they want, as long as they have the resources.

You have zero idea about how science works..please stop pretending that you do.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: GetHyped

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. There is a whole other scientific world out there that you have no clue about. Hidden from the public eye.

That mainstream BS from universities and your friendly neighborhood scientists is like 100 years behind. As much as you may think it is current cutting edge science, it's not.

I know what you are thinking... Let me tell you, "peer review" is the most damaging aspect to mainstream and current science ever. You may laugh at that, because on the surface peer review seems like a good idea. But the reality is, many huge scientific breakthroughs have been missed and completely abandoned because some peer review discredited certain theories to a point where they were discarded all together.

What I am telling you seems hard for you to grasp, which is confusing to me, because you would think on a conspiracy minded forum you people would understand.


Of course...you have a small shred of proof for these amazing claims right?




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join