Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Einstein's Methodology (Read 55075 times)
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #29 - 07/27/10 at 17:21:07
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/27/10 at 15:44:48:
...
But in a more serious vein, why do we let this lunatic spout off here?


Because he hasn't been abusive.  It's the same reason we let people spout off on any subject. Being wrong, even being obstinately wrong, isn't reason enough to censor someone.

I try to be consistent.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #28 - 07/27/10 at 15:44:48
Post Tools
So there was a conspiracy 123 years ago that set the entire course of Western science down a false path.  It is quite simple, even for autodidacts, to discern that this path is false, yet the entire scientific community conspires to keep us on it.  Shocking!  If only the journalists of science would take this up.  But of course, they're either idiots or they're in on the consipracy.

But in a more serious vein, why do we let this lunatic spout off here?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10278
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #27 - 07/27/10 at 10:35:54
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 07/27/10 at 05:44:44:
The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 (there were many other years when the experiments were conducted) allegedly allowed Einstein to disallow the presence of the ether by demonstrating that light traveled at the same rate regardless of the orientation of the light with respect to the rotation of the earth. Never mind that some 200,000 experiments by Dayton Miller (check wiki dayton miller) confirmed ether drift.

Sloughter, you made my day.  Grin Grin Grin
Again you create your own conspiracy of silence! Just one name:  Robert S. Shankland.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #26 - 07/27/10 at 08:23:10
Post Tools
I just read through all of Sloughter's dross. I think I deserve a beer.

Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #25 - 07/27/10 at 05:44:44
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/26/10 at 03:41:36:
[quote author=5B65717B64677E574E6966080 link=1279832611/15#15 date=1280104593]I just read up on emission theory.  Emission theory is the pre-Einsteinian notion that light is emitted from a source and the speed of that source will affect the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light is not constant.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Now this doesn't burden the site, does it?
I sincerely hope Sloughter will prove that Einstein falsified this experiment as well. My admiration for Einstein would increase immensely, as he was an 8-year old boy back then, living 1000's of kilometers away.


The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 (there were many other years when the experiments were conducted) allegedly allowed Einstein to disallow the presence of the ether by demonstrating that light traveled at the same rate regardless of the orientation of the light with respect to the rotation of the earth. Never mind that some 200,000 experiments by Dayton Miller (check wiki dayton miller) confirmed ether drift.

Later Einstein decided he really "needed" the ether for general relativity and brought it back "space without aether is unthinkable". Now the newfangled phrase for the ether is, "zero point energy".

General relativity was in such a state of flux that you can even find a headline in the 1925 New York Times saying, "Ether Drift Confirmed   Light Found to Travel at Different Speeds in Different Directions." Poor Michelson (who did the conflicting studies) had no idea what Einstein wanted in 1925.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #24 - 07/27/10 at 05:12:23
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/26/10 at 17:25:10:
Sloughter is a nut job and should be banned from this website.  He's some sort of habitual autodidact, not only in chess but in various other pursuits as well.  Having worked himself up to a 1750 Elo, he presumed to opine haughtily here about chess opening theory.  Naturally we welcome the contributions of players of any strength (I am no great chess talent myself), but sloughter's high-handedness and superiority are quite unpleasant. 

I am not sure what his qualifications are in physics, but I doubt that he's any better educated than any other moderately well-read student of popular science.  Yet he opines haughtily on this subject as well.  Einstein is supposedly a charlatan. 

Sloughter invariably adopts a contemptuous tone toward others here, and it casts a pall.

Further I thought that this person had been exposed already as some sort of freaked-out anti-Semite; am I wrong?  I thought he had already been banned on that basis.  In any case, he should be banned now for nothing more than the bad tone of his posts.  Throw in his crazy conspiracy theories and it makes a more than sufficient case for his removal.


"his crazy conspiracy theories" Here is the quote from Brian Martin, not me, about the problems he has identified in astrophysics in the website called, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Scandal" The quote: "Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth...They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent...The usual pattern is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally-by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..."

Here is a technical report submitted to the Republican National Committee in 2000 from the Emerging Energy Marketing Firm:

"When low-energy nuclear fusion (LENR---Dubbed 'cold fusion' by the media) was first announced, the 'hot fusion' community falsely assumed that this low-energy nuclear reaction was a threat to the continuation of $500 million (or more) per year from the DOE. Lobbyists for the hot fusion community took the following steps:

1)A committee visited several laboratories where low-energy nuclear reactions were achieved and declared them all invalid,

2)An agent was obtained at the Office of Patents and Trademarks to ensure that no cold fusion patent applications were approved,

3)All major U.S. Technical Journals were warned against printing any cold fusion articles. All but "Fusion Technology" the Journal of the American Nuclear Society agreed not to publish,

4)A fund of about $30,000 was provided to Random House to fund a book to destroy the credibility of cold fusion. This book was, "Bad Science, The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion", a hatchet job by Gary Taubes. (Editor's note---Gary Taubes visited the laboratories of Professor John O'M Bockris, one of the greatest electrochemists of the 20th Century under the guise of a science reporter. Bockris had reported the presence of tritium, the first time it had ever been reported from a LENR apparatus, and Taubes knew it undermined one of the key aspects of his book. That finding has been confirmed hundreds of times in other laboratories.

Taubes then took aside one of Bockris's graduate students and told him that he had better recant on his findings or Taubes would ruin him professionally.)

5)An "official" from Washington, D.C. called all major universities and warned them, "If you have as much as a graduate student working on cold fusion, you will get NO CONTRACTS OUT OF WASHINGTON!"

6)Bob Park, ardent critic of cold fusion, called it "voodoo science" for years but his latest comment, "It is science."

MIT scientists at the initial testing of cold fusion submitted a preliminary report to DOE identifying excess heat in one of the cold fusion cells. They were testing for excess heat. They got excess heat. Then in the final report, the MIT physicists claimed they were really testing for, "The sudden onset of heat" i.e. they changed the experimental design after the experiment was run. Next these physicists went to DOE and claimed they had found no evidence of LENR activity and recommended against any future funding. This caused Eugene Mallove, Science Writer for MIT, to quit his job out of disgust and set up the New Energy Foundation. Tragically, he was murdered a few years ago in front of his parent's home.

In this last decade the following countries have active government-sponsored cold fusion research facilities---France, Italy, South Korea, Japan, Israel, etc. In a 60 Minutes interview they sent one of the 90% of physicists who don't believe in cold fusion to the Energetics Laboratory in Israel. This expert in measurements agreed that there was excess heat from an unknown source, and, as a result, he became a believer.

If cold fusion patents had been allowed, the worst that would have happened is that a few patents for perpetual motion machines would have been approved. Who would buy them???

If LENR critics are wrong and they are, they may have cost America billions of dollars in lost patent revenues since these patents were blocked for over a decade; only recently have they been allowed.

The status of LENR reactors now is that researchers get excess heat, reliably on demand in a short period of time. They can get other research scientists to set up and use the apparatus and get 100% reproducibility of results. Also there is clear evidence of alpha particle i.e. non chemical emission from their reactors.

In a public forum at UConn as a participant in a meeting of the National Philosophy Alliance, I publicly went on the record to accuse MIT hot fusion physicists of committing restraint of trade and conspiracy to commit restraint. They are using their monopoly status to suppress competing technology. That is restraint of trade.

MIT hot fusion scientists obviously "got" to Senator John Kerry (D, Ma). He was the only Senator determined to shut down the Integral Fast Reactor program (Just google under the integral fast reactor, wiki)  even though it promised limitless clean, safe, energy that would stem nuclear proliferation and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, according to Charles E. Till nuclear expert working out of Argonne National Laboratory.

What John Kerry never told the American public is that if the IFR program had gone ahead, the hot fusion program at MIT would have been superfluous. MIT stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in lost research grants. Since MIT is, no doubt, one of John Kerry's biggest constituents, is it overly surprising he would try to benefit his constituents by acting against the National Security of this country particularly if the source of bogus information about nuclear non-proliferation was coming from experts at MIT?

If you have any doubt that hot fusion research is a boondoggle, pork for physicists (Where is John McCain when your really need him?!) just plot on the x-axis, time, and the y-axis: 1)Cumulative amount of money in billions spent on hot fusion over the past 40 years, 2)Plot our dependence on foreign oil in percent on the y-axis as well. I think you will see a strong correlation.

If, starting 40 years ago, we had focussed on conservation, more fuel efficient cars, better batteries, renewables and new energy technologies, we would have energy independence today. You can thank physicists and John Kerry for our failed energy policies and all that has to do with our National Security.

Citation: Sloughter, Einstein's Methodology, 2, Chesspub Forum, Chit Chat
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #23 - 07/27/10 at 03:28:16
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/26/10 at 17:25:10:
Sloughter is a nut job and should be banned from this website.  He's some sort of habitual autodidact, not only in chess but in various other pursuits as well.  Having worked himself up to a 1750 Elo, he presumed to opine haughtily here about chess opening theory.  Naturally we welcome the contributions of players of any strength (I am no great chess talent myself), but sloughter's high-handedness and superiority are quite unpleasant. 

I am not sure what his qualifications are in physics, but I doubt that he's any better educated than any other moderately well-read student of popular science.  Yet he opines haughtily on this subject as well.  Einstein is supposedly a charlatan. 

Sloughter invariably adopts a contemptuous tone toward others here, and it casts a pall.

Further I thought that this person had been exposed already as some sort of freaked-out anti-Semite; am I wrong?  I thought he had already been banned on that basis.  In any case, he should be banned now for nothing more than the bad tone of his posts.  Throw in his crazy conspiracy theories and it makes a more than sufficient case for his removal.


Interesting you should call me an anti-Semite. When a highly respected physicists talked to one of his friends, he claimed to have found a problem with special relativity. His friends response, "I didn't realize that you were an anti-Semite." If the Jewish community wishes to call what Einstein called himself, "A Jewish Saint", then that is their problem.

When the American public realizes that they have been force fed a lot of nonsense about Einstein then they will be outraged that his reputation as the greatest genius of all times is largely fraudulent. Why is it that no one has mentioned that Einstein had little to do with E=mc^2 except get credit for it?

In many sources you will find that various authors had come up with equation before Einstein. For those of you who would like to see a better history of E=mc^2 should read the book by Hans C. Ohanian, "Einstein's Mistakes  The Human Failings of Genius." Among other things Ohanian points out that Einstein tried and failed seven times to derive the equation. Those of you who have read an earlier post will see that I specified every source of my observation that six scientists came up with either the matter/energy or matter/light conversion before Einstein. No one has disputed these sources.

It is easy to tar someone with the brush of anti-Semitism, but the basic assumption is that Semites always tell the truth and the anti-Semites always lie. I leave it up to the reader to discern the truth here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10278
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #22 - 07/27/10 at 01:47:38
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 07/26/10 at 13:21:59:
When a famous astronomer like Halton Arp is denied satellite time simply because he doesn't toe the party line with regard to the red shift?

If this Halton Arp is a victim of the silent conspiracy, how did he ever became famous? Ah, of course, by receiving prestigious awards and by publishing articles and books.

sloughter wrote on 07/26/10 at 13:21:59:
For almost 70 years Ricaro Carezani has demonstrated that neutrinos have no theoretical existence; they are simply a mathmatical error. If you wish to step out of the box and get an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, then get Carezani's book, "Storm in Physics" from Amazon.dot.com on a theory called, "Autodynamics".

Good old Sloughter creates his own conspiracy of silence here. Just read Autodynamics on English Wikipedia and you will find two experimental falsifications, blissfully neglected by our friend.
It's funny that good old Sloughter thinks his heroes so important that he doesn't even care to spell their names correctly (Ricardo Carezani and Johan Masreliez).
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #21 - 07/26/10 at 23:33:26
Post Tools
Thank you, Pantu! That was a fun and informative read! Now I know that 1/81 is  a very special # indeed!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pantu
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 289
Joined: 12/30/06
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #20 - 07/26/10 at 21:50:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/26/10 at 17:25:10:
Sloughter is a nut job and should be banned from this website.


I fully concur.  I can't muster any enthusiasm to refute him point by point since it's clearly pointless (as someone with a masters degree in theoretical physics who doesn't practice it, I'm unclear how I can be part of the big global conspiracy)

Normally I'd just ignore it but I'd rather see the spread of this rubbish stopped to try and help us along the path of evolution.

It's almost as good as the guy (who had his theories along with what was pretty much a declaration on insanity published) who declared that quantum mechanics is obviously wrong since Pauli's exclusion principle which states "electrons can't be in the same place"[1] contradicts basic chemistry where the electrons occur in pairs in the atom, then proceeds to explain the structure of the periodic table based on numerology[2] before proving he knew the correct formulation of the Pauli principle [3] based on 4 numbers, of which is different so 3 and 4 are important numbers as the first real prime and the first real prime plus one.  This is of course significant as 3x3x3x3 (3 to the power of 4) is 81 which is the ratio of the earth's mass to the moon, which are the 3rd and 4th planets (the moon being too big to be a planet).

The this is significant is proved by 1/81 = 0.012345679012345679012345679012345679012345679012345679.... almost having all digits from 0 to 9 repeating (no 8, which is significant for some reason I forgot) etc

I think there was also something weird involving the ratio of the earth and moon radius being 0.02731 while the period of the moon is 27.31 days, but I forget.

In any case, this almost flows together and makes sense, unless you are gullible or haven't had your coffee yet today.

[1]...which it doesn't
[2] in other words, it is made up of prime numbers or products of prime numbers.  Not the other numbers.  Wink
[3] which says the electrons can't be in the same quantum state, which is described by 4 numbers one of which is special as it is the quantum spin and actually means electrons with different spin attract each other.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #19 - 07/26/10 at 17:25:10
Post Tools
Sloughter is a nut job and should be banned from this website.  He's some sort of habitual autodidact, not only in chess but in various other pursuits as well.  Having worked himself up to a 1750 Elo, he presumed to opine haughtily here about chess opening theory.  Naturally we welcome the contributions of players of any strength (I am no great chess talent myself), but sloughter's high-handedness and superiority are quite unpleasant. 

I am not sure what his qualifications are in physics, but I doubt that he's any better educated than any other moderately well-read student of popular science.  Yet he opines haughtily on this subject as well.  Einstein is supposedly a charlatan. 

Sloughter invariably adopts a contemptuous tone toward others here, and it casts a pall.

Further I thought that this person had been exposed already as some sort of freaked-out anti-Semite; am I wrong?  I thought he had already been banned on that basis.  In any case, he should be banned now for nothing more than the bad tone of his posts.  Throw in his crazy conspiracy theories and it makes a more than sufficient case for his removal.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #18 - 07/26/10 at 14:42:25
Post Tools
Quote:
Einstein is the third rail of physics. Touch him and your reputation will be destroyed. Do you really think there is much interest in challenging his reputation? Challenge him and you will lose tenure track positions, be denied research grants, denied promising graduate students, you will be ostracized by your peers and driven from physics. Einstein is a cash cow, a rainmaker, the Big Daddy of physics.


Can anyone say "quantum mechanics"?

The entire diatribe is cut short when we remember that Einstein was challenged throughout his lifetime, and was proven famously wrong by the very next generation of physicists.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #17 - 07/26/10 at 13:21:59
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/24/10 at 14:45:03:
It is so pleasant to read about a dozen other proofs of your genius. We really had not had enough yet in your 4.Ng5 thread, were you proved that
a) you are one of the best opening analysts in the history of chess, due to the fact that nobody understand Steinitz better than you, enabling to improve on him;
b) you are widely acclaimed that you are one, but that stupid us are not able to recognize it;
c) Black should resign after 3...Nf6 4.Ng5!!!

I was soooo impressed that you only needed 15 pages and dozens of different proposed lines to prove it.
If my compatriot John Elburg praises the product of your marvellous brains, then who are we to contradict? He is the ultimate authority on this.

Infinite Energy Magazin is of course the leading magazine on physics - forget Science and Nature and the likes. These are too short-sighted to publish all those excellent articles on perpetual motion machines and cold fusion. Fortunately IEM does; only they provide hope for Mother Earth.

You are too generous to mention only Emil Rupp. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

Of course the authors of this page need professional protection from violent conspiracy-physicists 24 hours a day. This protection is provided by an ultra-secret paramilitary unit. US-government will deny that this unit exists, which ultimately proves how the authors have to suffer for their courage.

Nobody needs to comment on what you write about the conspiracy of physicists. You have given definite proof. You should follow another trail to investigate: the headquarters of this conspirational organisation could be found in Moengo, Suriname; I probably know who the High Bigwig of the Evil Physics Community is.

Mankind should be grateful for such hard and persisting investigators like you, who without any personal interest devote their entire lives to reveal the Ultimate Truth: the physics we all suppose to know is One Big Fraud.

Alas you have forgotten to mention another group of truely excellent, genuine and sincere, but completely neglected scientists:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

This post is of course nothing but a diversion manoeuvre - the ultimate bluff. By admitting that this conspiracy exists I try to make the rest of the world believe it doesn't. Booohh, I am so mean.


There is not in most branches of science what is classically defined as a "conspiracy" there is a "silent conspiracy". In a silent conspiracy, the participants "know their place" without being told.

Einstein is the third rail of physics. Touch him and your reputation will be destroyed. Do you really think there is much interest in challenging his reputation? Challenge him and you will lose tenure track positions, be denied research grants, denied promising graduate students, you will be ostracized by your peers and driven from physics. Einstein is a cash cow, a rainmaker, the Big Daddy of physics.

A classic example is over Einstein's reputation. What we have seen is massive puffery. Is the press part of the conspiracy? You tell me. Why is it that when Time Magazine put Albert Einstein on the cover of the "Person of the Century" issue, no one vetted the article by Stephen Hawking? I have found five false statements by Hawking just to promote Einstein.

Did anyone at Time Magazine consider one particularly relevant point? The man who stood to benefit the most from Albert Einstein's fame, was Stephen Hawking. As heir apparent to Einstein, he stood the most by puffing up Einstein. The more he puffed up Einstein, the more he puffed up himself.

First of all you might address the conspiracy by astrophysicists detailed not by me but chronicled by Brian Martin in the Website, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Theory".

No conspiracy? When a famous astronomer like Halton Arp is denied satellite time simply because he doesn't toe the party line with regard to the red shift?

C. Jonan Masreliez can't get satellite time from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to test his theories of the Space Expanding Cosmos, because it, in part, is an alternative to the Big Bang theory,

33 prominent scientists have decried the fact that no research money is spent studying alternatives to the Big Bang theory.

Over 3000 papers are critical of either parts or the entire theory of special relativity, but it is "settled" science.

For almost 70 years Ricaro Carezani has demonstrated that neutrinos have no theoretical existence; they are simply a mathmatical error. If you wish to step out of the box and get an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, then get Carezani's book, "Storm in Physics" from Amazon.dot.com on a theory called, "Autodynamics". For those who consider him a crackpot just because there is a problem with scalar addition, his basic concept concerning relativity is correct. To observe reality, you do not need a reference frame, you just need an observer and the universe without having to resort to a reference frame.

Here are a list of Carezani's accomplishments. How many theoretical and observational physicists can match in signifcance the following discoveries of Carezani?

1)Predicting, then having validated from a neutral source, a new subatomic particle,

2)Demonstrating that relativity is just a subset of a much larger set of equations,

3)Providing a theoretical argument against neutrinos for almost the past 70 years. Neutrinos are an artefact of Einstein's math. Every time a new "neutrino" sighting from neutrinos detectors is observed, he was able to demonstrate they are other subatomic particles, not neutrinos.

Part of the problem with neutrinos is that scientists have to come up with really magical ways to get their excessive numbers from neutrino detectors. You see, there is a real statistical problem when you start getting "too many". Carezani has estimated to get one particular number of hits from a supernovae, 8-10% of the mass of the star would have to have to have been converted to neutrinos. In another scenario, physicists postulated that some kind of galactic event "trapped" neutrinos for several hours before releasing them all at once.

The mathematic error that Carezani found 70 years ago as a graduate student in theoretical physics has consistently been discarded by a silent conspiracy. Here is his theoretical refutation of neutrinos.

When you derive the kinetic energy equations for radioactive decay, Einsteinists have added a kinetic component to the decay process. Thus they "push" the atom while it decays. As pointed out by Carezani radioactive decay requires no "push"; it is spontaneous.

Now comes the fun part. If you add a push, later on, you have to remove the push, hence the need for neutrinos, an artefact of the "push". This is how it works in practice. You will find in theory that you should get  a particle with about 1.15 Mv. Now measure its energy and what you get is about .37 Mv. There is a mismatch between theory and observation that Paolo theorized was carried away by a massless particle, a neutrino.

Along comes Carezani and just like that, theory matches observation i.e. according to his equations with the right kind of math, neutrinos disappear!

Here is the present situation, use the wrong math, you get 40 different kinds of radioactive decay and forty different energy levels of neutrinos. Use the right kind of math and there are forty different kinds of radioactive decay and no neutrinos. Occam's razor---the simplest expanation is the best.

There is a relative "zoo" of subatomic particles. Neutrinos started out as massless particles. Read the literature and see how much mass physicists have been adding to them through the years. According to Carezani there is supermarket full of them. Big strong physicists like the big neutrinos; smaller weaker physicists like the smaller neutrinos.

Physicists are adding so much mass to neutrinos, in a thousand years we will see neutrinos the size of neutrons! Just plot on the "x" axis time and on the "y" axis the increase in mass predicted by various physicists.

4)An improved Compton equation validated independently by other physicists,

5)A better match fit to the precession of D-Herculis. Relativists are off by a factor of three in terms of predicting the precession of D-Herculis. Using Carezani's equations, his math is only off 20% which can be attributed to tidal forces.

There are other examples of Carezani's work being a better fit to the data.

If you want to point to a "silent conspiracy" consider the book by David Bodanis called, "E=mc^2  A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" It actually reads more like a novel than a biography. Bodanis "wishes" this is what Einstein did.

Consider the fact that Bodanis may have done a couple of years of research to write the book; I have spent maybe 200-300 hours researching the history of E=mc^2. Bodanis couldn't find one scientist who came up with either the matter/light or matter/energy conversion according to that equation. I have found six starting with Sir Isaac Newton in a book called "Opticks" where Newton stated, "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another." That is one. Here are five more: 2)Preston in "Physics of the Ether" where he indicated that one grain of material (a grain is a unit of weight. There are 7000 grains to a pound), has enough energy within it to lift a 100,000 ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles, 3)Keely in "Dashed Against the Rocks" "Matter is force in bondage. Force is liberated matter. Matter and force are one." 4)de Pretto. He came up with the conversion of matter into energy in 1902. His family had relatives who lived in the same village as family members of Besso, Einstein's best friend. Just get in touch with Umberto Bartocci. 5)Becquerel. He predicted that one milligram of radium would be converted into energy every 1000 million years at the rate of so many calories/sec. Check out Caroline Thompson's website, 6)Hasenhorl  In the journal, Annalen der Physik Hasenhorl provide evidence of the conversion of matter into energy. His equation which he wrote in 1904 a year before Einstein's 1905 paper measured it a level of 8/3 rds mc^2. He later revised this downward to 4/3 rds mc^2.

Here is how you tell just how hard hitting the Bodanis book is. On page 5 you will find the following statement, "Einstein and his wife had given away their first child, a daughter they had before they were married..." Sounds perfectly innocent doesn't it. Now let me spin the same set of facts. "Einstein fathered an illegitimate daughter he abandoned." Same set of facts, different spin.
Reference this as, Sloughter, July 2010, "Einstein's Methodology,"  Chesspub forum, Chit Chat
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10278
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #16 - 07/26/10 at 03:41:36
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/26/10 at 01:36:33:
I just read up on emission theory.  Emission theory is the pre-Einsteinian notion that light is emitted from a source and the speed of that source will affect the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light is not constant.

This theory has been completely, comprehensively debunked, which is why only a few people believe it today.

Since 1887 to be precise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Now this doesn't burden the site, does it?
I sincerely hope Sloughter will prove that Einstein falsified this experiment as well. My admiration for Einstein would increase immensely, as he was an 8-year old boy back then, living 1000's of kilometers away.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Einstein's Methodology
Reply #15 - 07/26/10 at 01:36:33
Post Tools
I just read up on emission theory.  Emission theory is the pre-Einsteinian notion that light is emitted from a source and the speed of that source will affect the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light is not constant.

This theory has been completely, comprehensively debunked, which is why only a few people believe it today. (Dowdye's resume claims that he is the "only serious scientist" to be working on emission theory since 1907.)

I was invited to join Mensa but declined. Perhaps because I am not a Mensa member, I don't see any evidence whatsoever of emission theory's correctness. I see plenty of evidence of its incorrectness, but I won't burden the site with that.

I do agree, as does Markovich and just about every historian of science, that science is a conservative social institution that does not accept change readily.  But science is also driven by evidence and the scientific method.

Your claim that modern physics is corrupt and a party to some giant conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Your "proof" is a quote from a an introduction to a book. That's not exactly evidence.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo