[Physics] About "logical errors"

Thu Nov 3 18:37:48 CET 2016

Tom,

   Yes, this was precisely Dingle's famous dispute from the 50's, mentioned
on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

Please hold your nose re. Wikipedia's obvious bias in the way it reports on
everything!

Doug

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:06 AM, carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161103/0b75e414/attachment.html>