[Physics] About "logical errors"

Thu Nov 3 13:06:45 CET 2016

I have just been reading a lot of posts and came across one which stated that there are no logical errors in GR. I think there are but I will have to look again to be sure. I am far more familiar with SR so how about this for a logical error in SR?We have two clocks, A and B. They are separating from each other at a constant velocity. A sees B running slow, while B sees A running slow. Logically this is A > B and B > A, which is an impossibility. Unless of course we accept that the time dilation is only an appearance which is dependant on perspective.
Tom Hollings.

----Original Message----

From: dm88dm at gmail.com

Date: 02/11/2016 21:34

To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] About "logical errors"

 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

_______________________________________________
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/20161103/64d2b7e4/attachment.html>