The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Your right, this is getting boring. The amount of mass is too small to account for observed phenomena as calculated by Einsteinian physics.
I finished the sentence for you as you left that crucial part out.


Wrong. Zwicky used both Newtonian physics and Relativistic physics and came to the same conclusion with both calculations. He was ignored for 40 years by the way. Doesn't that qualify for a far-fetched alternative hypothesis brownie point?



Not because of observation, but because of math.


So you are saying that the MOND advocates are doing their math wrong because it doesn't match the observed phenomena of the Virgo Super-cluster properties?

What exactly is your problem?



Wow, no duh! This is what I'm saying. I even brought up MOND earlier as a viable alternative to inventing new unobserved exotic matter that is not predicted by observation.


So instead you have a completely unjustified demonstration that Newtonian physics is different in other places of the universe. Relativity modifies Newton under conditions where the velocity approaches the speed of light, but at least it applies everywhere in the universe.


What is this, backward thinking month? The model came first with the prediction, then the observation showed a discrepancy, then dark matter was invented from the discrepancies. Dark matter wasn't thought up before Einstein made his calculations.


The observations were not made and the discrepancy was not noted before Einstein either.

And Dark Matter was not "INVENTED"; it has been "HYPOTHESIZED" - that is: suggested as a possible answer. MOND and other possibilities have also been suggested as possible answers. So far DM is the best fit for the most circumstances. Maybe MOND will win out in the end. What is your problem with that?



Your not to bright are you?


Bright enough to read better than you. And spell better too, most of the time. You need to get past the home page summary on this stuff if you are going to discuss it coherently.


(from the November 2009 Mission Update page)

The accuracy of the GP-B experimental results has improved seventeen-fold since our preliminary results announcement at the American Physical Society annual meeting in April 2007. At that time, only the larger, geodetic effect was clearly visible in the data.

See the part about 2007 there? The data unambiguously showed the geodetic effect in 2007 (the geodetic effect is space-time curvature, which you deny). In 2009 they could also show the frame dragging effect.


Oh noes, our funding is being taken away! Quick, let's say it was noise all this time and mathematically take out a certain percentage of this "noise" to get those "real" results!


What does a change of funding regime have to do with working on the final results. Projects often have a mix of funding strategies over their life time. If the ending of the original grant motivated them to find results 'Quick' then their wouldn't need to find a new source of funding. What a ridiculously ignorant argument. The GP-B project found another funding source to replace the withdrawn funding source and life went on. What exactly is your problem with that? If you get layed off don't you go look for another job?

{politicalrant}Yes, the scientists working on Gravity Probe B had to find a new funding source when the Bush Administration decided to make a political decision to reduce spending on scientific research. That is part of a conscious effort by the extreme right wing of the conservative movement to dumb down the American population, eviscerate the American education system, and demonize Science Endeavor in all disciplines.{/politicalrant}


Ah, OK I'll bite. Your dumb. Seriously. Every single experiment is purposefully designed to reduce and account for possible sources of noise from the get go. This one particular experiment flops hard, get's funding cut and WHOA! Magically it's due to noise without any previous mention prior to funding getting cut. Come on... seriously? You buy that garbage? I have a bridge in the everglades to sell you real cheap if you want.


Look moron, if you don't stop this name calling crap I'm going to tell on you. Seriously.

Of course the experiment was designed to account for possible sources of noise. That is what they have been doing for the last several years, filtering it out. They know the data has errors induced by imperfections in the mechanism; no matter how carefully the gyro are manufactured they are going to be imperfect. That is what they have been filtering out of the data. Do you seriously believe that they expected to obtain a perfect manufacturing process so that the data could just be read off the ticker and published 30 minutes after it hit the hard-drive at the Earth Station?



Really? Your doing it wrong then. I can find quiet a few articles with the search term 'gravity constant variable'.


Yes I found that summary overview that I linked. I am referring to follow up stuff on the specific paper that the New Scientist article was reviewing. Was it mentioned in the overview and I missed it?


Occam' Razor


Occam's Razor only applies to explanations that account for all the same data. If a simple explanation does not cover all the data that the more 'complex' explanation does, then it has to be complicated in order to do so. And your knowledge of the principle does not make you qualified to choose between alternate hypothesis in the field of cosmological physics for the rest of the world unless you are a cosmological physicist. And even then it only qualifies you to debate it with other cosmological physicists, not to decide for the whole world.

I think I'm done with you on the subject. You don't seem to have any perspective, are unwilling to recognize logical sequences, and refuse to read sentences that don't fit your personal world view. I really don't think there is any need to continue the discussion.


Actually, he has quiet a bit to offer to this discussion. Unfortunately, he never got the chance to publish his Dynamic Gravity Theory and the United States government currently has it classified. OK, now my turn "Oh for crying out loud for making an erroneous statement that Tesla has nothing to contribute!"


Since he developed DGT in the 1890's and died in 1943, I would have thought he had plenty of time to publish, especially as he was so critical of Einstein's work. And the materials that the US classified during the war, just in case, have all been released and are housed at the Nikola Tesla Museum.

Tesla was a brilliant man, contributed much to the human database, and is certainly under appreciated by the average Joe, but trying to make him a god just insults his memory.

The worst thing about it is that I notice a fair few of the web sites that are boost Tesla's god-like qualities at the expense of Einstein do so for specifically anti-Jewish purposes.

How's this for a reasoned approach to science:

(I refuse to put in a functional link to this obscene site but the source of the following quote is loveforlife.com.au/content/08/02/09/nicolai-teslas-dynamic-theory-gravity. And I'm horrified that it is an Australian domain name.)


Nikola Tesla single-handledly brought in the 20th century - all by himself. And he is the one who deserves ALL of the credit for our technological advancement in all areas. But considering we live in a world where the Zionist Jews control everything, and want to take credit for everything, Tesla was denounced as a crackpot and was removed from the historical record.

Einstein was a Jew, by the way - and Nikola Tesla is quoted as saying, "Never trust a jew". How right he was.


I can't find any proof of that assertion about Tesla one way or the other (I don't believe it, but on the other hand I have no particular reason to doubt it. I do know he didn't like Einstein), but it is sure telling that a lot of people that are head over heals in love with Tesla do so for that reason and that reason alone.



[edit on 31/5/2010 by rnaa]




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



MOND is orders of magnitude more ridiculous than even the totally insane Dark Matter nonsense.

The problem of galaxy formation AND ROTATIONAL VELOCITIES was solved by Anthony Peratt in his plasma simulations and in his laboratory tests.

The rotational velocities of galaxies matches Peratt's observed findings of laboratory plasma.

There is absolutely no need to modify Newtonian physics nor is there any need to concoct totally made up nonsense like dark matter to account for galactic rotational velocities.

We know with certainty why galaxies form and what causes them to rotate at the speeds observed.

This has been conclusively proven in simulations and in the lab.

Therefore, believing that Newton was wrong (despite all evidence to the contrary) or that undetectable fairy dust is responsible for the observed galactic rotation rates is akin to believing Noah sailed above the mountain tops with an Ark full of animals.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by rnaa
 



MOND is orders of magnitude more ridiculous than even the totally insane Dark Matter nonsense.

The problem of galaxy formation AND ROTATIONAL VELOCITIES was solved by Anthony Peratt in his plasma simulations and in his laboratory tests.

The rotational velocities of galaxies matches Peratt's observed findings of laboratory plasma.

There is absolutely no need to modify Newtonian physics nor is there any need to concoct totally made up nonsense like dark matter to account for galactic rotational velocities.

We know with certainty why galaxies form and what causes them to rotate at the speeds observed.

This has been conclusively proven in simulations and in the lab.

Therefore, believing that Newton was wrong (despite all evidence to the contrary) or that undetectable fairy dust is responsible for the observed galactic rotation rates is akin to believing Noah sailed above the mountain tops with an Ark full of animals.



A quick Google search on Anthony Peratt learned me that his model is flawed. Besides usual issues like where does the current come from, it seems he compared post processed images of galaxies with his results. The (dark) areas between spirals arms on these images are actually only about 10-20% less mass than the arms themselves, while his simulations and experiments show that the mass should be close to zero.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by -PLB-]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

A quick Google search on Anthony Peratt learned me that his model is flawed. Besides usual issues like where does the current come from, it seems he compared post processed images of galaxies with his results. The (dark) areas between spirals arms on these images are actually only about 10-20% less mass than the arms themselves, while his simulations and experiments show that the mass should be close to zero.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by -PLB-]


Peratt's model is not flawed.

You probably got that from some message board as it is unsourced.

Peratt did simulation runs in a supercomputer AND in laboratory test shots of plasma and achieved the same results.

There is no mystery.

We know with certainty how and why galaxies form.





[edit on 31-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You will have to do better than this to convince a skeptic. Did or did his model not account for where the currents come from, or how the plasma was initiated in the first place? Did or did his model not predict that between the spiral arms mass is close to zero while observations show otherwise?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
There is a much simpler explanation for the creation of planets and the moon.

Planets: God made them.

The moon: God put it there.

And by God I mean aliens.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by sirnex
 




Nikola Tesla single-handledly brought in the 20th century - all by himself. And he is the one who deserves ALL of the credit for our technological advancement in all areas. But considering we live in a world where the Zionist Jews control everything, and want to take credit for everything, Tesla was denounced as a crackpot and was removed from the historical record.

Einstein was a Jew, by the way - and Nikola Tesla is quoted as saying, "Never trust a jew". How right he was.

I can't find any proof of that assertion about Tesla one way or the other (I don't believe it, but on the other hand I have no particular reason to doubt it. I do know he didn't like Einstein), but it is sure telling that a lot of people that are head over heals in love with Tesla do so for that reason and that reason alone.
[edit on 31/5/2010 by rnaa]


We do not know who is sitting on the Tesla treasury of wonders
in a library down by the river in Los Alamos but they sure are powerful
and keeping it all to themselves.

The only reason Einstein is wrong is the promotion by the anti Tesla
agenda who knew Tesla was right.

Don't blame Einstein, he worked as well as he could and the interpretation
of some of his works might even be looked at differently with
the right promotion. The main concern was not to promote Tesla.
ED: Tesla found 50x speed of light particles, does that make him a bad person. Whats with the ethnic insertions that are totally wrong and
are the blame of the illuminati against Tesla.


[edit on 5/31/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Peratt's simulation was based on the plasmoid experiments of Winston H. Bostic. He created tiny barred spiral structures like that of the galaxy in the lab.

It was based on physical experiments.


I'm in preference to plasma cosmology of course. I also grow tired of the debate because it's exactly like religion. Fairy dust and all. But yeah sometimes I've argued that too.





top topics
 
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join