1
   

Relativity revisited once more still again

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 12:59 am
@dalehileman,
You do see relativiry is wrong, but you still doubt yourself!
DON't! you are on the right track.

the 'relativity authorities' are very very wrong.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 09:00 pm
@dalehileman,
The theory of relativity included a universe that was not expanding, this is just wrong, and when called on this Einstein admitted that he was wrong. However had Hubbell not been an astronomer, we would not know this. So do not be so sure of what it is you think you know.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3MuMPLoQZN4/hqdefault.jpg
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 01:35 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
You do see relativity as wrong,
Not at all Que, it's been very successful

Quote:
...but you still doubt yourself!
Always

However I do have a slightly different approach to relativity, more clearly explaining apparent relativistic changes in the moving object, that doesn't deny but merely presents a different way of looking at it, I call "relative relativity" addressing the theory with special reference to time-at-a-distance. I've now and again tried to explain it several times but everybody rejects it

Of course I could be dead wrong but nobody has shown me exactly how. That's one trouble with a2k
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 01:38 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
So do not be so sure of what it is you think you know.
DNA I'm not quite sure either, it's a notion I've been kicking around (see my reply to Que above) for years now; but I can't find anyone to exactly refute it

Of course I accede at once I might be dead wrong, while I confess I'm not exactly sure how to express it adequately. But its success explaining to Mind's Eye the relativistic changes almost shouts for some sort of response
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 01:50 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Not at all Que, it's been very successful



No, it is not, if you really think it is tell me why you think it is.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 02:34 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
From what I read, Que, and all I know is what I read, many practical experiments have verified it. When a ship comes back from a space voyage, eg, sure enough its clock had slowed exactly as Albert sez it shoulda
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 03:13 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
From what I read, Que, and all I know is what I read, many practical experiments have verified it. When a ship comes back from a space voyage, eg, sure enough its clock had slowed exactly as Albert sez it shoulda


Of course I know a lot of the 'so called experiments".
However, if you start looking closer at those experiments there is a lot wrong with them!
And if they say " its clock had slowed exactly" that is a vert very red flag!
Nothing can be that exact!
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 04:43 pm
@dalehileman,
The biggest problem with relativity, is that from what I have read, only 1 to 3 percent of highly trained physicist can truly understand it, and one link specified a total of 3 living people with comprehension of this. Which creates a problem as there can be no scientific agreement with this few persons to review the evidence. Also the theory by way of this also indirectly calls all the persons who do not understand it dumb, which could be true, but we all know that in the real world, there are always plenty of people who will try to sell us what we do not understand, and sometimes they succeed. The static universe was after all part of relativity and would have stayed there if not for better telescopes.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2014 05:29 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
a total of 3 living people with comprehension of this
I'd also heard this DNA but others refute it as complete nonsense
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:27 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
The biggest problem with relativity, is that from what I have read, only 1 to 3 percent of highly trained physicist can truly understand it, and one link specified a total of 3 living people with comprehension of this. Which creates a problem as there can be no scientific agreement with this few persons to review the evidence. Also the theory by way of this also indirectly calls all the persons who do not understand it dumb, which could be true, but we all know that in the real world, there are always plenty of people who will try to sell us what we do not understand, and sometimes they succeed. The static universe was after all part of relativity and would have stayed there if not for better telescopes.



LOL,. what a nonsense!!! Only three people!
Well, it is a way to keep control over an extremely stupid theory of course!

However, take prof Dingle, taught relativity- nonsense for years at university.
After years he found it relativity was deeply flawed!
He even wrote a book about it
So, here we must have one who really understood it, ptherwise he wasn't allowed to teach it at a university!


See, it really is all bollocks. And that is even very easy to understand.

So much wrong with the 'logic', the 'experiments"


It just proves my point that 'education' makes people extremely dumb, hence they haven't figuresd out yet how stupid relativity is, among with the other nonsenenical stupid and retarded theories like evolution, black holes, big bangm and so on and so forth




DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 08:05 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Actually though I have no idea of who your professor is, this proves that the flaws that he claims to have discovered and written about, were not proved, as if this were the situation, he would be slightly more important and famous than Albert currently is.

So keep at it, now I am neither endorsing relativity nor bashing it, I am just being practical.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 08:20 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
Actually though I have no idea of who your professor is, this proves that the flaws that he claims to have discovered and written about, were not proved, as if this were the situation, he would be slightly more important and famous than Albert currently is.

So keep at it, now I am neither endorsing relativity nor bashing it, I am just being practical.


Mine professor?? He is not mine professor?
No he wouldn't be famous by now, because that is not how the system works. The real heroes and inventors are burried very deep and may not see the light of day by the 'physicists'.
The religious icons (like the village idiot Einstein) are made quit religious so people stop thinking for themselves. And people are making extremely stupid remarks as that only three persons can understand that gibberish, bollocks and shite! Says quit something about the extremely stupid and flawed theory!!!

DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 09:37 am
@Quehoniaomath,
You mentioned Dingle, not me....! I simply and accurately stated, that if Dingle disproved Einstein, then his name would be far more famous, than it currently is.
http://www.hoteldiscountcode.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dingle2c.jpg
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 09:39 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
You mentioned Dingle, not me....! I simply and accurately stated, that if Dingle disproved Einstein, then his name would be far more famous, than it currently is.


Yes, I inderstood what you wrote. However, again, it is NOT TRUE.
If it was true there were a lot of other persons a lot better then the villagie idiot einstein!
But einsteins served the system perfectly.
The others with real good ideas and inventions aren't mentioned at all!
So, your assumption is very very wrong. Understandable yes, but really very wrong.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 09:50 am
@Quehoniaomath,
There are no clear answers once you dive into the theoretical. Thus it is easily possible, just as a better telescope disproved Einstein's Static universe theory, for a better space travel means to be invented using relativity principles, to gather enough new information, from the universe, and to have this new information render relativity not consequential. Yet relativity concepts helped create the travel means that disproved the concepts, and the ship sails on.
http://corcorantours.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/01-Dingle-Harbor_04.jpg

Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 09:55 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
There are no clear answers once you dive into the theoretical. Thus it is easily possible, just as a better telescope disproved Einstein's Static universe theory, for a better space travel means to be invented using relativity principles, to gather enough new information, from the universe, and to have this new information render relativity not consequential. Yet relativity concepts helped create the travel means that disproved the concepts, and the ship sails on.


Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 10:42 am
@Quehoniaomath,
That is because, like I have just said. There are no clear answers once you dive into the theoretical.
http://wallpaperswa.com/thumbnails/detail/20120412/abstract%20blurred%201920x1280%20wallpaper_www.wallpaperwa.com_79.jpg
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 10:44 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
You do see relativity is wrong, but you still doubt yourself!
No Que, not wrong. I just have this crazy way of interpreting it in order to more easily explain all the apparent relativistic changes in the moving object
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 10:47 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
So do not be so sure of what it is you think you know
I have no quarrel with Einstein whatever, I worship him

I do however have a novel way of looking at that mysterious time-at-a-distance, doesn't contradict Albert but merely offers a slightly different way of looking at time-at-a-disdtance as I tell Que above
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 10:49 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
that if Dingle disproved Einstein, then his name would be far more famous
Yea DNA, Dingle dangles
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2023 at 08:14:28