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.

 

The Speed Of Gravity - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm well aware of what the paper says, I'm also well aware that GPS orbital calculations have nothing to do with Einstein's retarded version of relativity.

This fact upsets a great number of physicists because they can't lay claim to the GPS system as being "proof of Einstein's genius."

The entire purpose of lobbying to have the GPS system include Einsteinian relativistic mechanics has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with posturing and ego.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Well, it's either because these guys' theories have been picked apart ad nauseum and no-one there's interested in doing it again, or your boy van Flandern was a visionary ahead of his time.

I know which view I pick. I suspect you adhere to the other one.



That argument makes no sense.

1. If a theory is a crackpot joke, I'm sure they would have a whale of a time picking it apart. No need to ban someone over posting a ridiculous theory. If the theory is ridiculous, it is readily apparent to all who view it.

2. I see incredibly ridiculous theories put forth on those very same boards dealing with string theory and holographic universes.

3. They only ban the people that pose questions against standing theory, not the real crackpots.

Go ahead and look for yourself. There is all manner of nonsensical theories posted on those boards. Its only when people bring up obvious challenges to Einstein's retarded theories that they ban them.

Did you read the article I posted?

Does it look like a deranged mental patient wrote it?

Are my arguments pulled out of my azz with no references?

No, they are not.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Flandern didn't live long enough to see that the LIGO findings refute gravitational waves.

They don't exist.

LIGO has not found any and never will find any.


I thought that was interesting too. There weren't any waves detected by VIRGO, GEO600, TAMA300, AURIGA or Allegro, either.

If/when "super LIGO" is a crapout in 2014, and LISA in 2016, you'll see GTR specialists jumping off roofs.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm well aware of what the paper says, I'm also well aware that GPS orbital calculations have nothing to do with Einstein's retarded version of relativity.


Even your own cite contradicts you. I've got about 15,000 more that do as well.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm well aware of what the paper says, I'm also well aware that GPS orbital calculations have nothing to do with Einstein's retarded version of relativity.


Even your own cite contradicts you. I've got about 15,000 more that do as well.


OK, so you're going to nitpick my phraseology, good job.

Just makes you look desperate.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That argument makes no sense.

1. If a theory is a crackpot joke, I'm sure they would have a whale of a time picking it apart. No need to ban someone over posting a ridiculous theory. If the theory is ridiculous, it is readily apparent to all who view it.


One back-and-forth between van Flandern and the forces of sanity got up to some 85,000 comments back when Flandern was still alive. John Baez used to have the never-ending beat-down archived on his UC Riverside server but it's gone now.

It's one of those things that was just beaten to death, and no-one on physicsforum wants it to be resurrected anew, so they just toss you. It's sort of like bringing the old 'admiralty flag' argument to tax court, they've reduced it to a sort of shorthand now rather than deal with it over and over. These days they just penalize you for trying to introduce it. Thus, too, with Flandern over at pf, I guess.



2. I see incredibly ridiculous theories put forth on those very same boards dealing with string theory and holographic universes.


I hate that stuff too. Not sufficiently educated in string or M to argue it, and I don't want to take the time to get that way. It's not my thing.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
OK, so you're going to nitpick my phraseology, good job.

Just makes you look desperate.



Why should I be desperate? I didn't invent the thing.

The paper you cited as proof that the GPS system was unaffected by relativity belies you. You can't read past the first four or five lines without realizing the entire thing is about the corrections that have to be introduced - they're basically saying "for 2 meters it's good enough but not if you need precise time or more accurate positioning, especially in space".



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I think it was Flandern that gave the never ending beat down, as is blatantly clear by his papers and the observational evidence.

As for the banning because they don't want to argue about it anymore, that's preposterous.

They could simply lock the thread and tell me not to post about it again or point me to an existing thread.

Of course, Van Flandern's arguments are only one small subset of evidence against Einstein's retarded theories.

As my knol post points out, there's a ton more.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Why should I be desperate? I didn't invent the thing.

The paper you cited as proof that the GPS system was unaffected by relativity belies you. You can't read past the first four or five lines without realizing the entire thing is about the corrections that have to be introduced - they're basically saying "for 2 meters it's good enough but not if you need precise time or more accurate positioning, especially in space".



The paper highlights the fact that GR transformations are not used in GPS calculations.

The assumption that including them will increase accuracy is just that, an assumption.

It will certainly be interesting if a satellite ever does try to preform hyper-accurate measurements of GR in space....

Like Gravity Probe B - LOL

Total failure.

Gotta love those hypothetical models to remove "errors" from the raw data.

Lets see, what did NASA say about GPB again?

www.newscientist.com...

GPB managers had asked for additional funding to March 2010 to try to extract more information from the data, but the review panel doubted they could reach their goals.

It warned that the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity "is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community". Gravity Probe B's principal investigator, Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, could not be reached for comment.




[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Oh btw Bedlam, you sound like you have a scientific background.

I look forward to jousting with you in the future.

Take the time to review my knol post and parpar yer self.

I have a never-ending list of Einsteinian nonsense I want to expose.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The paper highlights the fact that GR transformations are not used in GPS calculations.

The assumption that including them will increase accuracy is just that, an assumption.


No, not really. We can't be reading the same paper, your take on it is odd.

Also, did you read Ashby?

These aren't the only demonstrations of GR and time dilation, they're a dime a dozen.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Oh btw Bedlam, you sound like you have a scientific background.

I look forward to jousting with you in the future.


I have grad degrees in physics and EE, just not a doctorate. Yet.

I also got nothing done today between you and Sirnex. I may have to limit my replies to one a day or something. Luckily there was some overlap between you two, apparently it's "hate Einstein" week or something on ATS.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Spacetime is the fabric of our universe. The fabric is not restricted to our laws.

WHICH IS IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH EINSTEIN'S THEORIES!


You got that much right.

Einstein's wacky version of relativity certainly doesn't comply with the known laws of physics.



You are not understanding what I said. It is space time that is not restricted by our own laws of physics.

Think of it like a bubble...

Inside the bubble there is us with our own little universe. SPACE TIME is the outer the boundary of our universe. It is not restricted to our very own laws. Which is why the force of gravity is instantaneous. Because gravity is the BENDING of SPACE TIME BY MATTER AND ENERGY.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Very good.

We shall have to discuss the fallacy that is "frozen in" magnetic fields in the near future.

With your EE degree, you should be able to follow along.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Wow..This post might get deleted because it does not contribute to the discussion, but wow.... good debate MneMeth1. I have been reading some of your threads lately and they have honestly changed my views on some of the mainstream theory’s out there. Congrats.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you for these references, but I don't think they are real experiments in the true sense of the word. They are more like cosmic observations that can be explained one way or the other.

Has there ever been a real experiment with controlled devices that has been used to prove one way or the other?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you for these references, but I don't think they are real experiments in the true sense of the word. They are more like cosmic observations that can be explained one way or the other.

Has there ever been a real experiment with controlled devices that has been used to prove one way or the other?


I would say those "cosmic observations" pretty much cinch the case.

It is an undeniable fact that the earth accelerates around a point where the Sun will appear to be 8 minutes into the future.

Simple logic tells us that light has a time delay while gravity does not.

It doesn't take a billion dollar tax payer funded experiment to prove this is the case.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by mnemeth1
 
You're a bright guy, but I suspect you've misidentified ATS as a means to dismiss Einstein's theories in the wider academic world. I can only weigh the evidence and go with the consensus of established scientific evidence.

Perhaps you'd enjoy more critical and informed debate on a site dedicated to physics? Let's be honest, only a handful of ATSers are able to offer a cogent rebuttal to your 'Einstein nonsense' attacks.


It is impossible to debate elsewhere. I'm not joking, try it out yourself.

I posted this article:
knol.google.com...

On:
www.physicsforums.com...

And was banned within 2 hours.

I didn't flame anyone, I didn't try to pick a fight, I think I only responded twice providing some background papers on the dinosaurs.


I had to find your post in Google's cache because they actually deleted the thread after they banned you. You were actually more polite than usual, have you been reading Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" or something? I was impressed, nice change in attitude there!


Several points in favor of alternative as supported by hundreds of published papers:
-the largest dinosaurs wouldn’t have been able to lift their heads due to the heart not being strong enough to pump blood up to the head.
-the largest dinosaurs’ bones would have crumbled under the stress of their weight.
Actually I think scientists are still debating about how exactly a giraffe is able to lift its head up so high, so while I think the question about how such a feat is possible for a giraffe or a dinosaur is valid, there are explanations in biological adaptations in the case of the giraffe (and probably the dinosaur also) without having to resort to alternative cosmological theories.

I'm guessing the reason you were banned is that you had to agree to follow the rules when you signed up and you didn't follow the rules. I guess that's a bannable offense on PF sort of like knowingly posting false information is bannable on ATS. Here are the rules:

www.physicsforums.com...

As you can see, the reason is that they already have threads about those topics. So it keeps 42 different people each from starting their own electric universe threads there like happens on ATS quite often, but they do have at least one or two threads each already on their "closed" topics. Actually if that list were implemented on ATS the post volume would probably be cut significantly. Can you imagine ATS with only 2 threads on 9/11?


But I think Kandinsky has a point, you may have better luck with scientists, and while physicsforums already has threads on these topics ( you can read those), you might have better luck with bautforum, they entertained your thread there for 17 pages, right? And I think you have sort of a "friend" there even if you don't know the guy, at least one of the scientists who's a regular member seems to have an open mind to some of your theories.

Regarding the speed of gravity, I'm apparently not thinking creatively enough in trying to come up with ideas on how to measure this. One way would be to instantaneously increase a mass at one point in space, and then measure at another point in space how long it takes for that instantaneous mass increase to register in the gravitational force, but I can't see any way to achieve such an instantaneous mass increase. In order to get more mass there, we have to move it there, and the movement of that mass is constrained by the speed of light.

I'm not sure Einstein's physics does constrain gravity to the speed of light, he clearly says mass can't move faster than light, but the warping of space time is not the movement of mass so I'm not aware of why his physics says the warping of space-time is restricted to the speed of light, but I haven't really looked into this all that much. In the example I gave of a hypothetical experiment to measure the speed of gravity, the limitation is really the speed at which a mass can travel, not the speed at which gravity can travel.

So I guess I'm agreeing with:


Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
According to Einstein mass bends the space time continuum, the bend is gravity. Any changes in the mass DOES NOT TRAVEL. Einstein states that nothing can TRAVEL faster than light. Mass creates the bend any change in the mass will instantaneously change gravity.


That sounds reasonable to me. I'm just not sure how to measure it (the speed of gravity).

To me the question is sort of like saying I have a theory that the ocean floors will all spring up if we drain all the water out of the oceans. I just can't think of a good way to drain all the water out of the oceans to test my theory. That's sort of where I'm at with the speed of gravity theory, I can think of an experiment that might measure it, but there doesn't seem to be any way to execute the experiment.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


GR does not constrain the speed of gravity.

SR does.

A violation of SR would mean GR is invalid.

GR truly is a work of epic fiction. A brilliant work. A beautiful work. But it is fiction none the less.

As I have grown to understand Einsteinian relativistic mechanics, my appreciation for the beauty of its explanation has grown, not diminished. It is however fundamentally wrong.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Doesn't the speed of gravity depend on the electrical and magnetic charge of the planet or body.?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join