[Physics] About "logical errors"

Wed Nov 2 22:34:37 CET 2016

 Arend,

RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS, II
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQweA_J4S4
---:::---

That Ron Hatch video you linked to is really great - I am only about half
way through it but I really like his discussion about the misinterpretation
of the energy of a beam of light at different altitudes. Also, in his wave
model of matter he quotes Herbert Ives, a quote I have never heard before,
which goes: "The quantum effects occur in the vestibule of the atom" - in
other words, its not in the transmission at all, as Hatch concurs -
fabulous stuff!!

Doug

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
> <ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Please see my http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html
> >
> > starts with
> >
> >> General Relativity Time Dilation Logical Error
> >> A Major Error in Modern Physics
> >
> > This is already a very bad idea of starting such a thing.  If I invent
> > an example of obvious nonsense, which no scientist will even start to
> > read,  I use "Einstien's logical errors in Relativity".   Your title
> > is already close to this.  Trust me: There are no logical errors in
> > relativity.
>
> I would argue that the error which lead to relativity, "Maxwell's
> hole", explains the logical errors in relativity. And then I mean
> Einsteinian GR as well as SR. Let me just quote Nikola Tesla. From an
> article I wrote earlier:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
>
> --::--
> This logically thinking realist already wiped the floor with the
> theory of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth time to
> be far ahead of his time:
>
> "It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space
> supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but
> nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be
> curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might
> as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only
> attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only
> speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the
> presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to
> stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to
> subscribe to such a view."
>
> Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the
> Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?
>
> Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is the
> emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but space in and
> of itself is not part of anything physical. And the way we describe it
> is nothing more and nothing less than an abstract definition, a mere
> thought construct to track what is where at any given time. Just like
> a treasure map: twenty paces north, thirty steps west. And because
> space is not physical at all, it can have no physical properties.
> Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same as saying
> that a street map becomes curved because the cities and villages that
> are printed on it are so heavy. So, when your theory demands your
> abstract (nonphysical) "space map" to be adjusted in order to
> straighten your theory out, then something is seriously wrong with
> your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it and preach it.
> Tesla said it like this:
>
> "The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas
> violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past
> and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and
> fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which
> fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.
> The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people
> take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are
> metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the
> relativity propositions has been proved."
>
> Whereof deed.
> --::--
>
> And from the article linked below, July 10, 1937, for his 80-est birthday:
>
> ----::::----
> "During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was
> fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a
> dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and
> hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this
> force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so
> satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false
> conceptions, as that of curved space.
> According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing
> to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a
> semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still
> self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent
> reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those
> of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding
> space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that
> the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite
> effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are
> coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is
> entirely impossible.
>
> But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies
> as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for
> them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature
> on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all
> attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing
> the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in
> the phenomena."
> ----::::----
>
>
>
> >> General Relativity has exactly the opposite time-rate effect from what
> all Physicists believe to be true.
> >
> > False. Too lazy to search, but even wiki level physics would tell you
> > that SR and gravity effects for, say, GPS satellites act in different
> > directions, thus, will at least partially cancel each other.
> >
> >> which means that we also constantly accelerate (radially downward),
> >> so that Einstein's General Relativity also applies to us.
> >
> > GR is necessary because gravity plays a role.  Acceleration can be
> > handled with SR too, no necessity for GR.
>
> Interesting that you bring up the "GPS" subject. I suggest watching
> some of the work of Ron Hatch. He is just about THE expert on GPS and
> he says that GPS pretty much kills the whole theory. From my
> background article:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature
>
> ---:::---
> Let us shortly address the issue of whether or not the aether theory
> has been disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the myth
> that GPS would not be possible without the relativity theory. These
> issues have been thoroughly addressed by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.,
> in his article "A Dissident View of Relativity Theory"(on-site copy),
> amongst others referring to the work of Ronald Hatch:
>
> --
> Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed
> with the physical properties of a permittivity, epsilon_0 of 8.854
> pF/m, a permeability mu_0 of 4pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic
> impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that
> outlandish?
>
> [...]
>
> What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about
> relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch
> is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a
> former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in
> his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts
> Einstein’s theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge
> Theory (MLET) has been proposed as an alternative to Einstein’s
> relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for
> certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory.
> --
>
> This same Ron Hatch recently gave a presentation about his findings:
>
>  RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS, II
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQweA_J4S4
> ---:::---
>
> I think we can write the whole relativity idea down. The funny thing
> is that, mathematically, it isn't even wrong!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161102/14312ecf/attachment.html>