THE GREAT ERROR OF EINSTEIN (The proof)

[tsolkas]

“Equivalence Principle” of the General Theory of Relativity, is absolutely wrong!

more.....http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/principle-equivalence/principle-equivalence.html

Christos A . Tsolkas

[OfficeShredder]

The initial equations are wrong. He treats momentum as a scalar quantity, when it clearly isn't (so it should be m1v1 + m2v2 + MV = 0, then broken up into scalar quantities). The way he writes it, it appears as if the objects just fall directly down towards the planet, and the planet falls directly up. However, the planet will move minisculy towards the larger object, the objects will obviously fall at angles to each other because they're falling towards the center of the large object (essentially), plus the additional angle (which adds on to the angle formed at the center) of them being attracted to each other.

Plus, the potential energy equations are wrong, because he uses the same R for both sides, despite the fact that m 1 and 2 are closer together.

Additionally, in his concluding statement, he claims g1 and g2 are equal, which is false because the planet moved towards the larger object.

[Epsilon=One]

The initial equations are wrong. He treats momentum as a scalar quantity, when it clearly isn't (so it should be m1v1 + m2v2 + MV = 0, then broken up into scalar quantities). The way he writes it, it appears as if the objects just fall directly down towards the planet, and the planet falls directly up. However, the planet will move minisculy towards the larger object, the objects will obviously fall at angles to each other because they're falling towards the center of the large object (essentially), plus the additional angle (which adds on to the angle formed at the center) of them being attracted to each other.

Plus, the potential energy equations are wrong, because he uses the same R for both sides, despite the fact that m 1 and 2 are closer together.

Additionally, in his concluding statement, he claims g1 and g2 are equal, which is false because the planet moved towards the larger object.I'm quite sure Einstein understood the problems and limits of his theory. It is with others that they were deified.

I agree, in general, with the concepts that OfficeShredder has provided.

For some further information on the subject you can reference my good friend Mario Rabinowitz's papers at: Cornell University's www.arxiv.org (http://www.arxiv.org) or read a selected, recent paper of Mario's, which is on point, (Feb. '06) at: "...Quantum Mechanics Violates the Equivalence Principle." (http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0601/0601218.pdf)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Please tell me if (I) am wrong, but is all of this math being done to prove that two different weights will actually fall at two different rates in the Gravitational Field of a Third Body?

Cause if it/that is the case.....

Like comparing A Jupiter Sized Object, against a Lunar Size object, Both being Attracted By the Earth? (Sorta)
('Sum of the Masses' Right?)

So the weight of the Earth plus Fifty pounds...
then, The weight of the Earth and Five pounds.....

And the Difference in acceleration is How Small? .....Cause it is there, and it is measuable/calculable.....

Is that the Gist of this? is that what Proves special relativity, well? slightly off?

Just Curious, me...... :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

Is that the Gist of this? is that what Proves special relativity, well?No.

slightly off?No; not even close.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Interesting cause at the bottom of the page that tsolkas Linked (This One (http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/principle-equivalence/principle-equivalence.html)) the Author mentions that....

(SNIP) Thus, after everything analyzed above, we reach the conclusion that Galileo and Einstein (the latter relied on the experiment of the former) drew and formulated totally wrong conclusions in respect of free-fall, especially in the case of “Galileo’s experiment” on which the “Equivalence Principle” of the General Theory of Relativity was predicated.

Therefore (as demonstrated above), since the “Equivalence Principle” of the General Theory of Relativity is not valid, then the Theory of Relativity itself should be deemed as an utterly erroneous theory of Physics, failing to represent physical reality under all circumstances.

Copyright 2006: ChristosA. Tsolkas June 2006 (SNoP)

Funny ......Looks exactly like that to me.

Heck! (I)'d Most assuredly agree with that Conclusion, but perhaps not the "Utterly erroneous" to complete, (to strong) for something that has 'demonstrated' some use....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No.
No; not even close.A "Near-miss" was it...... :rolleyes:

[Epsilon=One]

Funny ......Looks exactly like that to me.You confused special relativity with general relativity....is that what Proves special relativity...Not what I would consider a near miss.

[OfficeShredder]

You confused special relativity with general relativity.

Not what I would consider a near miss.

Hehehe.... I laughed about this one for a while.


I just realized something while re-reading this:

Based on relation (10), relations (11) yield the following:

h1=h2

But wait... if they start and end at the same point, and he proves g1=g2 (meaning the acceleration is the same)..... that means that the distance and acceleration are the same, as is the initial velocity.... it almost appears as if, despite is flawed initial equations, he still managed to prove that the objects fall at the exact same speed

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

isn't it as simple as using f = ma >> where f = G and m = weight of earth plus 50 kilos, then again with m = weight of earth plus 5 kilos ....or can it just be done on the difference, m = 45 kilos and the acceleration (due to gravity) that that experiences is the actual Difference between the acceleration of the two different weights, soooooo small as to be completely un-observable even to a very High speed camera.....right?

When watching the video of the "hammer & feather" drop, on the moon (I) got the distinct impression (view) that the Hammer landed first.....

.....anyways, (I) would agree with tsolkas that "inertial mass" is equivalent to "gravitational mass" as that follows reality better.

Anyone else?

Guess that Boat thing is General Relativity ....some of that still works, right?

[Epsilon=One]

...wait... if they start and end at the same point, and he proves g1=g2 (meaning the acceleration is the same)..... that means that the distance and acceleration are the same, as is the initial velocity.... it almost appears as if, despite is flawed initial equations, he still managed to prove that the objects fall at the exact same speedTo your credit, you have shown far more patience than I with your concern about the logic of these rambling posts. In the real world there are many more forces to consider both attenuating and intensifying.

Also, there are the many-body affects of gravity; whereas GR does not go beyond two-body considerations with Einstein's equations. And, of course, nothing is "at rest."

The posts are so egregious in reasoning and style that I seldom bother with them beyond an occassional terse reply.

Or, when I'm attacked; or, a post is so misleading for the casual reader that there has to me some mitigation.

Or, at a few other times an opportunity arises to clearly make a controversial point that I hope others may pursue. It is useless to reason or expect meaningful one-on-one dialogue when forum rules are continuously flaunted in such an egregious manner.

Certainly, no one can be expected to be without occassional error when posting ad hoc; however, there is no place for continued repetition without moving the discussion along with some new on-topic concept.

I've never been much for the schoolyard bully that wins with intimidation (uppercase, color, font size, unwarranted symbols and punctuation), and an aura of general tomfoolery mixed with dim-witted verbal assault.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

You confused special relativity with general relativity.Not what I would consider a near miss. ....or like when other people want to spend time laughing at you, because you asked a question, and some quoting poster so egregiously mis-quoted you that it no longer looks like you asked a question, but now everyone thinks you made a Statement.....

Would serve really well if some of you could figure out what one of these things >> ? << is....

Perhaps now we can know who are really the 'confused one(s)'


Oh yes, sized and emboldened as it seems that, otherwise, you miss it/them.

Rude & insulting, although ......nothing new......

EP1 you went off topic ....again! :eek:

OfficeShred hope you enjoyed your laugh, cause you fell for EP!'s MIS-quotation of me, and (therefore) its' Blatantly Erroneous Conclusion. :D

Couple of Maroons! :p

[Epsilon=One]

...isn't it as simple as using f = ma...There is nothing remotely simple about "f = ma"; even prior to high energy nuclear physics there were at least three common equations for force that do not use all the same terms. For the past 50 years, or more, of nuclear physics, it is well understood that no one has been able to satisfactorily define "force" (interaction is currently a term in vogue). No one, for sure, even knows what the fundamental forces are or how many there are. If light should be a force; What is its mass?; What is its acceleration? What is the structural force opposed to the strong and weak interactions within an atom? What is the force opposed to gravity that is observed as the "great attractor"? What is the force at the source of emergent "dark" energy?

No one has a clue as to what fundamentally constitutes mass beyond its macro manifestations.

Acceleration is almost completely without understanding as no one has an acceptable definition of time; let alone an explanation for what constitutes speed.

Currently, in the discipline of theoretical, fundamental physics these concerns are seldom considered because the emphasis is on bigger and better research equipment requiring more trained researchers to create empirical data that may be trivialized (along with its funding); if the general public understood the abysmal state of theoretical physics' understanding of the environment the effort would be on theory . . . math and logic, before billions of dollars in gravity wave research and supercolliders.

All that seems certain is: the more progress that is made with extending the Standard Models and Cosmological observation, the less we know about what we were once certain about.

Only an unknowledgeable fool would contend that "f = ma" is "simple."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Originally Posted by An knowledgable Fool
(SNIP) Only an unknowledgeable fool would contend that "f = ma" is "simple." (SNoP)Most Probably the reason Why (I) didn't ....but (I) did think that it would be a more "Simple" method of Finding a mathematical 'Proof'

What Kind of Person, Mistakes that?

Other then that, (Careful this is the In-timid-ating Part!) what was your Point?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Just went and re-read a little of tsolkas Work, Concludes that the Equivalence principal is wrong, (I) had Known of that by the Sum of the Masses over the square of the Distance - times Gravitational Force from some time back, (Mid-Ninties?) (I) was Helped to know that (I) could use The "Simplicity" that F = ma Demonstrates - Mathematically, to Prove that Point.

So What's wrong with that?

BTW (I) do recall Hearing that Dr. A. Einstein Had Called it His 'Greatest Blunder' His Cosmological Constant 'Thought'

So, clearly we Know that the Man that he was Had enough of a Sense of Himself as to Still be Capable of Admitting to Error, especially in Light of Better/moreaccurate Knowledge .....And from Waaaaaaaay the heck UP 'THERE' "top of the Heap"

You ?

[OfficeShredder]

Just went and re-read a little of tsolkas Work, Concludes that the Equivalence principal is wrong, (I) had Known of that by the Sum of the Masses over the square of the Distance - times Gravitational Force from some time back, (Mid-Ninties?) (I) was Helped to know that (I) could use The "Simplicity" that F = ma Demonstrates - Mathematically, to Prove that Point.


If you could re-state this in normal english, that would be great. I have to be honest, I have no clue what you just said

[Epsilon=One]

BTW (I) do recall Hearing that Dr. A. Einstein Had Called it His 'Greatest Blunder' His Cosmological Constant 'Thought'Yes, but today most world-class physicists and cosmologists understand the genius behind the requirement for the "blunder."

Yet, these same physicists don't realize that there were three errors in the inspired concept. The source, direction, and constancy were all that was wrong; not the necessity for such an element to GR. Einstein considered the constant as "negative" gravity operating from the infinitesimal. Actually, the force is perceived as positive from the infinite . . . and it has acceleration.

So, clearly we Know that the Man that he was Had enough of a Sense of Himself as to Still be Capable of Admitting to Error, especially in Light of Better/moreaccurate Knowledge .....He knew the error was there; but, he also knew the structural concept was correct, which was proven by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The only force that opposes gravity is the Big Bang, which he opposed to his death; so strongly that it took eight more years to get the fantasy approved as a Standard Model that will go down in history as one of the greated scientific hoaxes since the "Turtle-Elephant" supports.

The Big Bang, since HST, has been an albatross placed about the neck of theoretical physics by the Catholic Church that will remain so until academia can accept the reactive concept of Cosmic Inertia (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/CI).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, but today most world-class physicists and cosmologists understand the genius behind the requirement for the "blunder."
Yet, these same physicists don't realize that there were three errors in the inspired concept. The source, direction, and constancy were all that was wrong; not the necessity for such an element to GR. Einstein considered the constant as "negative" gravity operating from the infinitesimal. Actually, the force is perceived as positive from the infinite . . . and it has acceleration.
He knew the error was there; but, he also knew the structural concept was correct, which was proven by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The only force that opposes gravity is the Big Bang, which he opposed to his death; so strongly that it took eight more years to get the fantasy approved as a Standard Model that will go down in history as one of the greated scientific hoaxes since the "Turtle-Elephant" supports.
The Big Bang, since HST, has been an albatross placed about the neck of theoretical physics by the Catholic Church that will remain so until academia can accept the reactive concept of Cosmic Inertia (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/CI).
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

In relation to what (I) posted, and why (I) posted it, {to demonstrate that some people (Like Dr. A. Einstein) are willing and able to admit to error} this is Irrelevant Drivel.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If you could re-state this in normal english, that would be great. I have to be honest, I have no clue what you just said Basically (I) re-read tsolkas as to acertain just what they were trying to accomplish, proving the 'Equivalency Principal' Wrong, partially In reference to Galileo's work at Pisa.

Back in the Mid Ninties (I) had been working on the same thing, sorta, just not the same way...

(I) had done it By use of the old fashioned "Sum of the Masses over the Square of the Distance" Mathematics, but it had come to me, (From another human at a Distance/afar, after (I) had sent some papers to some people telling them that the method of Galileo's investigation/experimentation would NOT show the Difference in acceleration because it was so Tiny) that it could be done, mathematically, by the use of f = ma and by using the difference in the two weights to calculate just how small the difference in accelration was, and therefore Why galileo (and whomever helped him) would NEVER have been able to see such a Minute difference.

(I) suppose if (I) can find the references (I) can show you the math, f = G & (If a 5 kilo and a 50 kilo mass are used) M = 45 Kilos

Calculating the Aceleration of the 45 kilo difference will tell you just how much faster the 50 kilo weight accelerates V's the 5 kilo weight.

If you Calculate the rate of time you find it is Impossible to see (Visibly) such a event occur, unless you use a Vast Distance to draw out the difference.

Is that better?

[tsolkas]

Dear friends,

Relativity theory, is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, because:


A.

“THE EGG OF COLOMBUS”

THE GREAT ERROR OF PHYSICISTS!!!

If the J. P. Cedarholm – C. H. Townes Experiment (1959) is carried out exactly as it is on a moving vehicle (e.g. on an automobile, train, etc) then it will be instantly proven whether Ether exists in Nature or not. Unfortunately, this very simple Physics experiment has never been conducted to this day and this is a great error on the part of physicists!!!
Why, therefore, isn`t this very simple Physics experiment performed so as to demonstrate once and for all whether Ether exists in Nature or not?
Question:
Could there be a reason for its not being carried out?

http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/english.html


B.


(8) proposed rxperimens,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/english.html



C.


Advance of Mercury's perihelion (the right solution)
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/proof-perihlion/proof-perihlion.html


D.


Equivalence Principle, is wrong (the proof).
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/principle-equivalence/principle-equivalence.html


Thanks!

tsolkas

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

As for as (I) know the 'Ether' has been proven by the use of Two satelites, recently too.
EDIT >> Lagos (Sp?) Satellites << /EDIT

(I) too know a Manner of the Proving of it, and there is the Gravity B probe that also will be testing for it.

(amongst other things)

[Epsilon=One]

OfficeShred hope you enjoyed your laugh, cause you fell for EP!'s MIS-quotation of me, and (therefore) its' Blatantly Erroneous Conclusion. :DExactly, in what manner, was there a "MIS-quotation" that "OfficeShred...fell for"???

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Exactly, in what manner, was there a "MIS-quotation" that "OfficeShred...fell for"???
Whats the matter this time, Can't read?

[Epsilon=One]

Whats the matter this time, Can't read?I searched; I doubt if there is any such misquote to read; however, I was hoping that you might provide it, as you stated that it existed. Of course, if such exists, I will acknowledge it and correct it.

Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are up to your usual and continuing deception.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I searched; I doubt if there is any such misquote to read; however, I was hoping that you might provide it, as you stated that it existed. Of course, if such exists, I will acknowledge it and correct it.
Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are up to your usual and continuing deception.© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

YOUR Post #8 quoting my post #4 >> you truncated my statement, (Dropping the OBVIOUS QUESTION MARK) and INCLUDED NO FOREWARNING ABOUT IT!! AS YOU RECOMMEND(ED) DOING.

Whats the matter, DON'T FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES!!??!!!

[Epsilon=One]

YOUR Post #8 quoting my post #4 >> you truncated my statement, (Dropping the OBVIOUS QUESTION MARK) and INCLUDED NO FOREWARNING ABOUT IT!! AS YOU RECOMMEND(ED) DOING.You are absolutely wrong. Anyone can see your deception by reading the two posts that you reference.

And, thank you. You make my arguments better than I can.

And, hopefully, your encouragement for others to read more of my posts will help in furthering my positions concerning mathematics and theoretical physics.

All of a sudden, it occurs to me that your posts are not as great a waste of time as I had thought.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You are absolutely wrong. Anyone can see your deception by reading the two posts that you reference.
And, thank you. You make my arguments better than I can.
And, hopefully, your encouragement for others to read more of my posts will help in furthering my positions concerning mathematics and theoretical physics.
All of a sudden, it occurs to me that your posts are not as great a waste of time as I had thought.Love the way you assert yourself, and how you accuse me of being wrong, yet offer no explaination of 'how or why' ....probably because you haven't any reasoning.

So (I) said this....

Is that the Gist of this? is that what Proves special relativity, well? slightly off?

...and you quoted it as this....

Originally Posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...is that what Proves special relativity...

Clearly, A TRUNCATED QUOTATION! as you dropped the 'question mark' the ALL important Question Mark! but apparently you think that that supports you, YIKES!! :p

Where is the deception in that??

As for furthering your positions, what makes you believe that anyone believes you? (I) don't......cause (I) have taken time to 'discourse' with you.

So.....

[Epsilon=One]

...you accuse me of being wrong, yet offer no explaination of 'how or why' ....probably because you haven't any reasoning.Wrong again. As usual you are wrong and prove my point. I clearly referenced the "two posts" that you had referenced where the truth of my position is obvious; though, apparently not to you.

Thank you for quoting the posts. As you can see from your own post, your charges are without merit.

Note that I placed 3 dots before and after your words to indicate that it was a snippet of your words and the reader might want to check the original. Such is the approved procedure when there is any possibility of quoting out of context.

I snipped the end because I was embarrassed for you concerning the obnoxious, imperious "...well?" at the end of your words.

Possibly, you might extend similar courtesy to those that you continuously misquote/misconstrue.

Clearly, A TRUNCATED QUOTATION!...Yes, and unlike your practices, I clearly indicated it as truncated; and, did so to save you some embarrassment.

As for furthering your positions, what makes you believe that anyone believes you? (I) don't......cause (I) have taken time to 'discourse' with you.I am only concerned with your thoughts concerning any of my specific thoughts concerning philosophy, mathematics, or physics; otherwise, I am not concerned with what you believe. I have received nothing but encouragement from "back channel" e-mail. If there has been any doubt concerning my thoughts, it has all been presented in the forum.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Wrong again. As usual you are wrong and prove my point. I clearly referenced the "two posts" that you had referenced where the truth of my position is obvious; though, apparently not to you.
Thank you for quoting the posts. As you can see from your own post, your charges are without merit.
Note that I placed 3 dots before and after your words to indicate that it was a snippet of your words and the reader might want to check the original. Such is the approved procedure when there is any possibility of quoting out of context.
I snipped the end because I was embarrassed for you concerning the obnoxious, imperious "...well?" at the end of your words.
Possibly, you might extend similar courtesy to those that you continuously misquote/misconstrue.
Yes, and unlike your practices, I clearly indicated it as truncated; and, did so to save you some embarrassment.
I am only concerned with your thoughts concerning any of my specific thoughts concerning philosophy, mathematics, or physics; otherwise, I am not concerned with what you believe. I have received nothing but encouragement from "back channel" e-mail. If there has been any doubt concerning my thoughts, it has all been presented in the forum.
Ha ha-ha-hahahahahhahahahah
ad infinitum

[tsolkas]

Dear friends,

This Law:

THE LAW OF FREE-FALL

a) Two unequal masses m1 and m2 (m1≠m2) which are simultaneously allowed to fall freely from the same height h in the gravitational field of a mass M, always fall at different velocitiesυ1≠υ2, either the gravitational field of mass M is non-homogeneous (g= non constant) or considered to be homogeneous (g = constant).
b) Conversely, two equal masses m1 and m2 (m1=m2) which are simultaneously allowed to fall freely from the same height h in the gravitational field of a mass M, always fall at the same velocities υ1=υ2, either the gravitational field of mass M is non-homogeneous(g= non constant) or considered to be homogeneous (g = constant).
Where g is the intensity of the gravitational field of mass M.

http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/docume...uivalence.html

Is right or wrong?


Thanks,

tsolkas

[Eutectic]

This is a lot better than watching Jerry Springer

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This is a lot better than watching Jerry Springer
:D :D :D :D You just gave me a Really Good CHuckle with that one! :D :D :cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So. Mr. Epsilon=One, whomever you truly are, we are Making History here, whether you know it, or not.

(I)'ve Laughed at you, it is a "Presentational" Laughing as in .....truth(?) well, O.K. ...(I) did Have a Little Bit of a 'Chuckle' at it, but (I) am Not really Laughing at you, Certainly NOT that Loudly....

Your second Posting you tried to get the Audience to Laugh (at me) with your 'snip' about Ellipses, (I) can take a Joke, and return, as (I) did, 'Envisioning' (typing out) You and Mr. B .....Circling Oooops! Eeeellip'sing!

But you, thereafter accused Me of Being ...well(?) "Rude" for attempting to Joke Along .....

Why is it O.K. for you to Joke about Me, But Not the Other Way Round?

See In life there exists this "equivalence" Principal (Dr. Albert Einstein Was Right about it all being Relative) Part of Which is based upon Trust.

You are a Man of No Faith Because you Have no Trust in Humanity. (thereafter God)

You see Humanity and see no reflection of God, Because no one in Humanity is really trustworthy, Truly ....(I) agree.

But that is exactly the reason to Trust (Have Faith in) God.

See the reason why (I) can Agree that None of Us is Every truly Trustworthy, is because it is a Need/requirement of Socializing that we err (make a Mistake) in our relation with 'another' (Anyone) as to learn just where those boundaries (Invisible 'trust' Boundaries) actually are ....From them .......& to them >> from US!

So not having 'Absolute Trust' in Humanity is Sorta Just being 'Normal'....the error is to think that that somehow Proves that God Isn't Trustworthy....error in Logic actually, Because God as/is the Truth (Absolute) Never Lies, and the Only reason why we Don't Have 'Absolute Trust' in Each 'Other' is Because We do Lie ....And We ALL KNOW IT.

You seem to think that everything You have Learned Came from Man, But everything that Man Has Learned, Has Come From God.

If you Don't Know that, You Cannot Recognize 'Truth' Because God did it from Within Many Many Men Women & Children, over time, our collective amassed Knowledge....here, now.

What does a Child Teach? "Child, What is truth?" Child answers: "Anything that Is Not a Lie."

Funny too, (I) saw you, (well, "Epsilon=One" whomever you truly are) in another thread, talking about People who "Obfuscate Simple Truths"

It is an Easier (Ergo Simpler) mathematical Method to Employ f = ma as all that is required is to Know How much the Difference in the Two Masses will affect the Outcome, given the G = 6.674^-11 k/m/s any Division of that number by the real and actual Differentiation in the Weights, that Galileo Used At Pisa, would demonstrate the Reality that the Difference in Acceleration that the Heavier Weight Actually Has, Is SOOOoooooo Miniscule Well...."Egor, Did you see it?.....NO Master (I) swear On me Mothers Grave Master, there was NO difference"

Btw Mr. B @ 8:00 Pm EST The Exuberance of Your Verbosity is To copious for the Dominion of My Comprehension!

(Backhands the Sesquipedalist(sp?)....only a 'Tee Hee')

Know where (I) was?

(I) is a 'Presentation' Heck all (I) can do here is 'Color' Type Italic-a-sizing Boldly....No Vocals....that's Probably Because Silence Is 'Golden'...Eeeeeespecially when it is IN you ....you can feel that you know, in You, and it is Nice .....Very Nice.

[OfficeShredder]

Equivalence Principle, is wrong (the proof).
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/principle-equivalence/principle-equivalence.html

No, your proof is wrong. In your initial equation, you have Gm1m2/R for the potential gravitational energy of the two masses on both sides. However, this is wrong. The initial distance between their centers is 0, and later on, assuming you are correct, will be some small distance r. In fact, the way that you have it written out, you ASSUME that they fall with exactly the same speed the entire time. So you're missing a Gm1m2/r term when you substitute.

And thinking a bit more, your application of that term is misleading at best, and possibly shows a fundamental misunderstanding of potential energy... it's supposed to be negative.

Furthermore, if m1 and m2 are absolutely solid and homogenous, how the hell is m2 inside of m1?

Sorry, I just felt like tearing at it a bit more :cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(Backhands the Sesquipedalist(sp?)....only a 'Tee Hee') That expression was NOT directed at you, it is the use of the 'Expression' right above it, in the above post.

Had a Friend once who was being bothered by a Co-worker, so (I) taught them how to say that, they did it (said that) the next time that co-worker tried to bug them.....it was the end of it....... ;)

But now (I) am the one who is 'off topic' soooooooo........ :eek:

(Runs off :D )

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingsotn Ontario Canada MMVI

So (I) dislike doing math Publically without having another checking the work as (I) have, in the past, made stupid little errors and mathematics is so nicely precise that it makes me feel stupid when (I) do that .....so, (I) tend NOT to...

But anyways, If (I)'ve got it right the difference in acceleration due to gravitational attraction of two free falling objects in the Earth's gravitational Field Is roughly/simply the difference between the two weights, (as all else is sorta equal, The weight of the Earth and Its' Gravitational Effect....sorta) so if we use a Twenty Kilo mass and a Ten Kilo Mass the difference is Ten Kilos and the acceleration due to gravity of that works out to be (f = ma goes-to f/m = a) with f = G and m now ='s 10 Kg so it divides out to be this number 6.674^-12 m/s or 6.6 PICO (http://www.onlineconversion.com/decimal_number_system.htm)-meters (Trillionths' of a meter)

So you can figure out that if one weight experiences an acceleration due to gravity (increase in speed) of 6.6 Picometers per second at the height that the balls were dropped from at Pisa ....not a Chance.

But, (also) really nicely it does Prove that they will fall at Different rates, contrary to what Had/has been previously Taught.

Oh yes, if (I) have made a 'Dumb little mistake' Please be nice about it, just tell me, Gods' Grace (I)'ll FIX IT ...usually in red too!

[OfficeShredder]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingsotn Ontario Canada MMVI

So (I) dislike doing math Publically without having another checking the work as (I) have, in the past, made stupid little errors and mathematics is so nicely precise that it makes me feel stupid when (I) do that .....so, (I) tend NOT to...

But anyways, If (I)'ve got it right the difference in acceleration due to gravitational attraction of two free falling objects in the Earth's gravitational Field Is roughly/simply the difference between the two weights, (as all else is sorta equal, The weight of the Earth and Its' Gravitational Effect....sorta) so if we use a Twenty Kilo mass and a Ten Kilo Mass the difference is Ten Kilos and the acceleration due to gravity of that works out to be (f = ma goes-to f/m = a) with f = G and m now ='s 10 Kg so it divides out to be this number 6.674^-12 m/s

f=G???

Isn't it something like.... f=Gm1m2/r^2?????

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

f=G???
Isn't it something like.... f=Gm1m2/r^2?????© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Yes, but as a Simplification (simply) to Demonstrate clearly just how small the difference in Acceleration between the two Masses IS


Your right though, and that was the manner that (I) had originally persued it, because it is Really Clear that the Earths' gravitational Field pulls Harder on one, then on the other....cause otherwise they would Weigh the Same thing!

If you would like to do it that way, Go Ahead! please as it Helps me too

Perhaps you will notice in My post #4 in this thread, (I) had Known of that method.......started there ........long ago......

:cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Gravity is a Very Interesting force, it always acts as if it is one thing, and it ALWAYS ADDS ...... in math, well, gravity also always ADDS ...it is a Summing force, as all gravitational activities make effort to add to the gravitational force, by addition, of mass(es).

If you take the Earth, one planetary Body, ADD the moon to it, (Crash it into it) well, you end up with ONE (Gravitational) body! (After all the dust settles)

m + m = + (as) gravity = 1

(I) know it sounds weird but it is essentially correct, in its' principals.

All of the Individual Atoms that Comprise the molecules that comprise this planet have their own-individual Gravitational Fields yet, when amassed into this planet, they all act as if there were one thing, gravitationally....they all 'sum to one' in both, effect and operation.

Does that help?

From The Wisdom of the "Sages of the Ages"

"Everything Is One"

[Epsilon=One]

Gravity is a Very Interesting force, it always acts as if it is one thing, and it ALWAYS ADDS ...... in math, well, gravity also always ADDS ...it is a Summing force, as all gravitational activities make effort to add to the gravitational force, by addition, of mass(es).Yes; "Gravity is a Very Interesting force..."; as, there is absolutely no Standard Model explanation for "Why?" it is as it is. There is no action of gravity that is understood. Not one single facet of it! Everything that academia knows of gravity has been found irreconcilable with some observation.

Einstein certainly wasn't too sure it was "a Summing force" when he proposed the Cosmological Constant, which today is known, regardless of Einstein's idea, to be a "negative" component of cosmological gravitational attraction.

Most world-class, theoretical physicists now, concedingly, agree that the non-adding force of gravity must be a new, non-Standard Model force. For over ten years this Cosmic Inertia (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/CI) has decimated theoretical Cosmology.

(I) know it sounds weird but it is essentially correct, in its' principals.This is exactly where, "in its' principals," that our understanding goes awry. If not our concept of gravity would not be in the realm of metaphysics.

Gravity consists of several distinct phenomena; one of the most obvious manifestation of gravity is compression (negative to gravity's usual source at the infinitesimal) as opposed to the illusion of attraction. One must admit that "action-at-a-distance" defies every mechanical law of physics; therefore until proven otherwise, must be considered in the realm of metaphysics.

Another of gravity's manifestations is observed opposing the weak and strong interactions of mass.

All of the Individual Atoms that Comprise the molecules that comprise this planet have their own-individual Gravitational Fields yet, when amassed into this planet, they all act as if there were one thing, gravitationally....they all 'sum to one' in both, effect and operation.Have you ever wondered, "Why?"

Does that help?It would seem that you are just perpetuating the secular faith that has led to endless enigmas, paradoxes, and debilitating confusion among the elite as well as the masses.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes; "Gravity is a Very Interesting force..."; as, there is absolutely no Standard Model explanation for "Why?" it is as it is. There is no action of gravity that is understood. Not one single facet of it! Everything that academia knows of gravity has been found irreconcilable with some observation.That is wrong.

Einstein certainly wasn't too sure it was "a Summing force" when he proposed the Cosmological Constant, which today is known, regardless of Einstein's idea, to be a "negative" component of cosmological gravitational attraction. Reference?? And NOT to yourself please, as you state there are no current (Standard Model) explanations ....so you don't have one either. (if you had, and it worked, people-Scientists would know!)

Most world-class, theoretical physicists now, concedingly, agree that the non-adding force of gravity must be a new, non-Standard Model force. For over ten years this Cosmic Inertia (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/CI) has decimated theoretical Cosmology.Maybe it is in the Interpretation of the Observation that the Error is arising, as there is NO non-adding force of gravity except Heat!

This is exactly where, "in its' principals," that our understanding goes awry. If not our concept of gravity would not be in the realm of metaphysics.Did it cross your mind that that is Why (I) have posted limited information pertinent to exactly that?

Gravity consists of several distinct phenomena; one of the most obvious manifestation of gravity is compression (negative to gravity's usual source at the infinitesimal) as opposed to the illusion of attraction. One must admit that "action-at-a-distance" defies every mechanical law of physics; therefore until proven otherwise, must be considered in the realm of metaphysics. "Actions at a Distance" may appear to defy "Mechanics" ......But not energies

Another of gravity's manifestations is observed opposing the weak and strong interactions of mass.And the Current theory reference to that is??? Where???

Have you ever wondered, "Why?"After all (I) have done in these forums, only you would ask me that. (Inane!)

It would seem that you are just perpetuating the secular faith that has led to endless enigmas, paradoxes, and debilitating confusion among the elite as well as the masses.Really (I) hadn't been aware that a person like me, on the Internet, had such influence (Debilitating Confusion of the Elite).....but where do you see this 'Secular faith' you accuse me of perpetuating? as this Thread Has Nothing to do with religion, "Secular Faith" Does...

As for confusing people, YIKES you take the Cake, the Pie, the Meal, the Breakfast, the Lunch, the everything..

Haven't you noticed how few people come back to converse herein, after you have basically assaulted them with your posting style, and perpetuation of your Venomous critic of "Pomo Elites" ......what's the Matter? Jealous cause your NOT one?

(A "Leader" in Physics, after all, you were a MATH teacher, by Trade, Right?)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

f=G???
Isn't it something like.... f=Gm1m2/r^2?????© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

BTW it was in 'Typed out' in My post #15 ...followed by your post #16 ...asking me to say it in "Plain English" ....perhaps a slight re-read would assist you?

BTW Did you try it the other way? f=Gm1m2/r^2 for a 20 Kg weight and then a 10 kg weight and then find the difference in acceleration, that arises, that way?

Please (I) would Love to see the math, to bad too cause EP1 was (apparently) a Math teacher yet, seemingly he offers NO such assistance in such ventures....

(Could have made History, :eek: Tee hee he heehehehheehehehehehheheeeeeee! :D :cool: )

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

You cite Mach's Work, it says this.... @ this site (http://www.phy.bg.ac.yu/web_projects/giants/mach.html)

(SNIP) Mach also proposed the physical principle, known as Mach's principle, that inertia (the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest and of a body in motion to continue in motion in the same direction) results from a relationship of that object with all the rest of the matter in the universe. Inertia, Mach argued, applies only as a function of the interaction between one body and other bodies in the universe, even at enormous distances. Mach's inertial theories also were cited by Einstein as one of the inspirations for his theories of relativity. (SNIP)But you rale against 'actions at a distance' yet this work RELIES upon exactly that.

And BTW it is because, as tsolkas said, Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass are the equivalent items.

EP1 you are sooooo smart you have outsmarted yourself! and you don't even know it!

[OfficeShredder]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

BTW it was in 'Typed out' in My post #15 ...followed by your post #16 ...asking me to say it in "Plain English" ....perhaps a slight re-read would assist you?

BTW Did you try it the other way? f=Gm1m2/r^2 for a 20 Kg weight and then a 10 kg weight and then find the difference in acceleration, that arises, that way?

Please (I) would Love to see the math, to bad too cause EP1 was (apparently) a Math teacher yet, seemingly he offers NO such assistance in such ventures....

(Could have made History, :eek: Tee hee he heehehehheehehehehehheheeeeeee! :D :cool: )

if f=GmM/r^2, and the force on your small mass f=ma, we know that a=f/m=GM/r^2, which is independent of the mass of the object (M is the mass of the earth.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

if f=GmM/r^2, and the force on your small mass f=ma, we know that a=f/m=GM/r^2, which is independent of the mass of the object (M is the mass of the earth.© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So you convienently neglect the Gravitational Force that that Small Mass (Difference) represents yet, as (I) have pointed out, that Small mass Difference will cause one of the Masses to accelerate Slightly faster (6.6 Picometers per sec) then the Other, Reguardless of the Earths' effects, but you think...what? that because it is so small that it can be entirely neglected??

After all, that is the point, to prove that they DO NOT fall at the Same rate, and they don't! Provably!

[Epsilon=One]

You cite Mach's Work, it says this.... @ this site (http://www.phy.bg.ac.yu/web_projects/giants/mach.html)

But you rale against 'actions at a distance' yet this work RELIES upon exactly that.You are not quite correct; as you apparently have missed the subtleties of Mach's principle as explained by Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=214) (Summary). Mach is accurately describing what Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128) (Overview) proposes as one of gravity’s effects that is referred to as Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.g2d.us/CQS/PT/RHC) (RHC). It is RHC that accounts for the stars remaining in their orbits, the Pioneer anomaly, accelerating, galactic recession, etc.

Am I to believe that you are advocating Mach's principle that is not a part of Standard Model Theory?

RHC is not attractive "'actions at a distance'"; RHC is a direct force, and its reaction against, mechanically compressing "dark" (transparent) matter (http://www.2-CQ.info/PT/DM) (Pulsoids (http://www.2-CQ.info/PT/Pulsoids)).

And BTW it is because, as tsolkas said, Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass are the equivalent items.I don’t believe that I disputed this anyplace in a post? Your implication without reference is hardly proper.

It’s nice that you can add to an informative dialogue with only limited theatrics and ad hominem comments. Your post is greatly improved and shows that you are trying. I give it about a 7.5; others may even be more generous than I.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Oh Yes, aside from that ....(I) just examined your math, and it is wrong, reguardless of the NEED for doing it twice, once for the heavier mass (20 Kg) and once for the lighter one, (10 Kg) THEN find the Difference in their accelerative rates .....after that.

The Math Method (I) employed is a Real Shortcut, it is ignoring the Earths' Contribution, but it IS proving that they will NOT accelerate at the Same Speeds, AND that that Difference is To Small to See >> Visually

(Exonerates Galileo, and His Assistant...the real one, not the "Egor" (I) made up .....so (I) could stick {hopefully} Humorous words into the Mouth thereof)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Okay, a Simple URL to tell of Some 'soundness' of Sourcing, Enchanted Learning (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Mass.shtml)

From there, (Yes! From there!) a Reference for the Numb'ers...cause sometimes the are, sometimes NOT, especially if/when people don't "beat you over the Head with them" ...bit like argueing on the internet (I) suppose

6.0 x 10624 kg = mass of earth

G = 6.67 x 10-11m3/(kg sec2).

So, Earth Plus 20 Kgs = 6000000000000000000000020

Earth Plus 10 Kgs = 6000000000000000000000010

6000000000000000000000020 x G =400200000000000.000000001334

6000000000000000000000010 x G =400200000000000.000000000667

Therefore (so) this number 400200000000000.000000001334 minus this number 400200000000000.000000000667 = 0.000000000667 or 6.67 10^-10 which is the difference in the Available Forces at work....The difference in the Individual Weights' (Gravitational Pull) on the Earth, and the Earths' on the Weight(s) ....together ....oh Yes, (I) could have choosen an 'r' value of ten, squared it to one hundered and Further Reduced the 'Available force'

So you tell me, are your eyes fast enough to see that? cause (I) alread know that at 29 frames per second ......"look it's MOVING PICTURES"

"Are we there Yet?"

Oh Yes, Pardon My Math......

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So Knowing that Gravity treats the Two Masses Disceetly is as Simply as Placing them upon a Scale, as their 'weight' is a Gravitationally Induced Function. (one weighs twice as much as the other ...after all)

That is Because Gravity is Also responsible for the "At Rest" State, when the Rock is Just 'Sitting at the Top of the Hill' that is Gravity (The Gravitational Energy Field) AT WORK, holding it there.

The Coefficient of Friction that is there is as a Result of Gravity and its' Incessent Activity, 24/7/365/4.5 Billion Years Worth!

So that number, and that is what Backs up the Logic Mathematical Proof, 6.6^-10 (Thats 66 Nanometers, you've heard of that one? Nanotechnology, at the Atomic Scale....) is the Force available, acting on the Extra Ten Kilos that is the Difference in the Initial Weights, and is roughly the Difference in the Accelerative Rates .....at that Point, in Free-fall.

Thats' why you would need to learn Math, in Science.

Its' a Nice Language, Usefull, but as a language it has its' Limitations such as Xeno's' Principal that allows us to go, Mathematically, well Past Realities' Limits.


Sew......A thread!

[OfficeShredder]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Okay, a Simple URL to tell of Some 'soundness' of Sourcing, Enchanted Learning (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Mass.shtml)

From there, (Yes! From there!) a Reference for the Numb'ers...cause sometimes the are, sometimes NOT, especially if/when people don't "beat you over the Head with them" ...bit like argueing on the internet (I) suppose

Dude... are you kidding me? On that very page that you linked, they proved that all masses fall at the same speed.


6.0 x 10624 kg = mass of earth

G = 6.67 x 10-11m3/(kg sec2).

So, Earth Plus 20 Kgs = 6000000000000000000000020

Earth Plus 10 Kgs = 6000000000000000000000010

6000000000000000000000020 x G =400200000000000.000000001334

6000000000000000000000010 x G =400200000000000.000000000667

Therefore (so) this number 400200000000000.000000001334 minus this number 400200000000000.000000000667 = 0.000000000667 or 6.67 10^-10 which is the difference in the Available Forces at work....The difference in the Individual Weights' (Gravitational Pull) on the Earth, and the Earths' on the Weight(s) ....together ....oh Yes, (I) could have choosen an 'r' value of ten, squared it to one hundered and Further Reduced the 'Available force'

In other words, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic high school physics. Nice to know that.

First, you aren't using the equation correctly at all. It's f=GmM/r^2. You can't just add the two masses together, and calculate the "total force". The additive nature of gravity is applicable to external matter... so if you have a bunch of objects pulling on a separate mass, the force on that mass would be equal to the force on it from each individual object.

Besides, I agree with you there is more force pulling on the larger object than the smaller one. But that's the point! If an object is twice as massive, it takes twice as much force to move it as fast.

All you've proven is that the earth and a twenty kilogram object accelerate a third mass towards them faster than the earth and a ten kilogram object; a fact I wouldn't dispute

[quote]So that number, and that is what Backs up the Logic Mathematical Proof, 6.6^-10 (Thats 66 Nanometers, you've heard of that one? Nanotechnology, at the Atomic Scale....) is the Force available, acting on the Extra Ten Kilos that is the Difference in the Initial Weights, and is roughly the Difference in the Accelerative Rates .....at that Point, in Free-fall.[/quote[

Nanometers? Assuming you're still referring to the "available force", I'm pretty sure it's not measured in nanometers.

Thats' why you would need to learn Math, in Science.

[Epsilon=One]

...Math... Its' a Nice Language, Usefull, but as a language it has its' Limitations such as Xeno's' Principal that allows us to go, Mathematically, well Past Realities' (sic) Limits.If Xeno states this, then Xeno is wrong. Math does not go "well Past Realities' (sic) Limits"; math only goes to the dual limits of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality). (Unless maybe your capitalizations indicate that you have a somewhat different precise meaning of "Math" and "Reality"??? . . . that you haven't let us in on.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If Xeno states this, then Xeno is wrong. Math does not go "well Past Realities' (sic) Limits"; math only goes to the dual limits of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality). (Unless maybe your capitalizations indicate that you have a somewhat different precise meaning of "Math" and "Reality"??? . . . that you haven't let us in on.
Well Looky Here EP1 has now gone to Inserting UNHIGHLIGHTED FEATURES into His Quotations of me

EP1's Quotation of me, Mr. Robin Parsons as Above
Originally Posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...Math... Its' a Nice Language, Usefull, but as a language it has its' Limitations such as Xeno's' Principal that allows us to go, Mathematically, well Past Realities' (sic) Limits. As Highlighted in red talk about a Miss=Representer!

Shouts out, "You Go Girl"....[i]Sneaks up and lifts the Skirt Hem, Slightly, to wave to EP1 who is Hiding under there.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Dude... are you kidding me? On that very page that you linked, they proved that all masses fall at the same speed. Ya And DudE they are wrong if they did that.

All (I) wanted was a Very zeroed' reference to that number M the mass of the Planet.

In other words, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic high school physics. Nice to know that. See Yourself? (in that statement...cause now you prove it)

First, you aren't using the equation correctly at all. It's f=GmM/r^2. You can't just add the two masses together, and calculate the "total force". The additive nature of gravity is applicable to external matter... so if you have a bunch of objects pulling on a separate mass, the force on that mass would be equal to the force on it from each individual object.That is what (I) did, Individual Object subjected Force Comparision

BTW the green and the Blue Contradict each other

As for the Equation (I) used GM+m=f .....twice, then (I) subtracted the results to find the "Remnent Force" Available/there/operational

Besides, I agree with you there is more force pulling on the larger object than the smaller one. But that's the point! If an object is twice as massive, it takes twice as much force to move it as fast. So here is where you didn't do your High School Science as, Mass and Volume are not equivalents, you can easily have a 20 kg mass equal in SIZE to a 10Kgs mass Simply By Playing with the Materials and respective densities....HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE.

You cover (your own confusion?) by calling it, thereafter 'twice as "Massive" '

Can you see that?

All you've proven is that the earth and a twenty kilogram object accelerate a third mass towards them faster than the earth and a ten kilogram object; a fact I wouldn't dispute Well, what is proven is that a 20 kg mass accelerates Slightly Faster then a 10 kg Mass, even if only from its' OWN addition to the Gravitational Affect .....6.6 Picometers per s

Nanometers? Assuming you're still referring to the "available force", I'm pretty sure it's not measured in nanometers. As the "remanent of Available force" as drawn from that Equation for G it would be in meters per second^2

Thats' why you would need to learn Math, in Science.Gods' Grace (I) did, just that that was Twenty six Years Ago, and (I)'ve not opportunity to practise certain aspects of what (I) have/had learned then

You?

[OfficeShredder]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Ya And DudE they are wrong if they did that.

All (I) wanted was a Very zeroed' reference to that number M the mass of the Planet.

Why would you trust a website that uses supposed incorrect facts to calculate constants?



That is what (I) did, Individual Object subjected Force Comparision

Ok, let me try explaining. You have three objects, A, B and C, all of equal mass.

A B C

A is 5 meters from B is five meters from C. The gravitational pull on B is equal to ZERO. Gravity doesn't just blindly add masses like you seem to believe. The gravitational pull on A is not equal to twice the gravitational pull on A by B, it's equal to the gravitational pull on B, plus 1/4 that, because C is twice as far away. See how you have to calculate the individual forces and sum them together to get an accurate answer?

Furthermore, you make the rather interesting claim that an object has a gravitational pull on itself, that causes a net acceleration in a certain direction. Not only does this blatantly violate all conservation laws (just let it build up speed, then use it as a perpetual motion machine), it also slaps common sense in the face.

BTW the green and the Blue Contradict each other

They don't, as explained above.

As for the Equation (I) used GM+m=f .....twice, then (I) subtracted the results to find the "Remnent Force" Available/there/operational

You're just using "big" (I use the term liberally) words to try and confuse people here... "remnant force" that is "operational" has no mathematical nor scientific value behind it. The way you're using the formula would be great if you were calculating the net gravitational pull on the moon by the two objects, but not for calculating the net gravitational pull on one object by the other.

So here is where you didn't do your High School Science as, Mass and Volume are not equivalents, you can easily have a 20 kg mass equal in SIZE to a 10Kgs mass Simply By Playing with the Materials and respective densities....HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE.

I apologize for the ambiguity, but it seems as if you get the point. Stop nitpicking and start learning actual science. Sheesh

You cover (your own confusion?) by calling it, thereafter 'twice as "Massive" '

Can you see that?

If by covering my own confusion, you mean using the proper term (an object with twice as much mass is twice as massive, by definition. Massive refers to mass, not size).

Well, what is proven is that a 20 kg mass accelerates Slightly Faster then a 10 kg Mass, even if only from its' OWN addition to the Gravitational Affect .....6.6 Picometers per s

If a non-symmetrical object (say, an astronaut) was floating in space, which direction would he accelerate himself in?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Why would you trust a website that uses supposed incorrect facts to calculate constants? Which facts there are wrong? they are using the Commonly accepted (To Date) Responce....


Ok, let me try explaining. You have three objects, A, B and C, all of equal mass.
A B C
A is 5 meters from B is five meters from C. The gravitational pull on B is equal to ZERO. Gravity doesn't just blindly add masses like you seem to believe. The gravitational pull on A is not equal to twice the gravitational pull on A by B, it's equal to the gravitational pull on B, plus 1/4 that, because C is twice as far away. See how you have to calculate the individual forces and sum them together to get an accurate answer? And therein you are wrong as all three Masses experience gravity and the gravitational Effects Each Mass Creates/generates for itself ....NO where is the result Zero

In your scenerio 'B' no Longer generates its' own gravitational field and that is Just wrong!

Furthermore, you make the rather interesting claim that an object has a gravitational pull on itself, that causes a net acceleration in a certain direction. Not only does this blatantly violate all conservation laws (just let it build up speed, then use it as a perpetual motion machine), it also slaps common sense in the face. NOT On itself but Of itself .....Big difference, as it is Kinda well known that "all mass has Gravity"/Gravitational Energy

They don't, as explained above. Uhhmmmm, yes they still do....

You're just using "big" (I use the term liberally) words to try and confuse people here... "remnant force" that is "operational" has no mathematical nor scientific value behind it. The way you're using the formula would be great if you were calculating the net gravitational pull on the moon by the two objects, but not for calculating the net gravitational pull on one object by the other. The use of the Largesse of the Numerical Values is to try to demonstrate the Scale at work, as in there's 'Atlas' holding up the Planet in his left hand, peering into his right hand, trying to find those two little specks of Micro Dust that you want to use to determine if there is a Difference in Acceleration due to gravity.....You know, math wherein we derive answers to FOUR significant Digits.....

"Remnent force" is the force at work that is the difference between all of the forces at work, or how much more force is acting Upon the 20 kg free-falling weight.

I apologize for the ambiguity, but it seems as if you get the point. Stop nitpicking and start learning actual science. Sheesh Thank you. (I)'ll try (to stop 'nitpicking' (?..moi??) but still be precise)

If by covering my own confusion, you mean using the proper term (an object with twice as much mass is twice as massive, by definition. Massive refers to mass, not size). It is simply a suggestion of what is/was transpireing in your brain and why you had missed the point.

If a non-symmetrical object (say, an astronaut) was floating in space, which direction would he accelerate himself in?
Opposite to which direction he could exert force in....does that help?

[OfficeShredder]

Opposite to which direction he could exert force in....does that help?

Which direction does he exert force in? It's just him, floating out in space.

And therein you are wrong as all three Masses experience gravity and the gravitational Effects Each Mass Creates/generates for itself ....NO where is the result Zero

In your scenerio 'B' no Longer generates its' own gravitational field and that is Just wrong!


B generates its own gravitational field. Ok, fine. Tell me which way object B accelerates in. Left or right?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Which direction does he exert force in? It's just him, floating out in space.Your Original Question.....

If a non-symmetrical object (say, an astronaut) was floating in space, which direction would he accelerate himself in? Asks the 'Highlighted" so the responce (I) gave, stands as valid.....

B generates its own gravitational field. Ok, fine. Tell me which way object B accelerates in. Left or right?If B is between A & C and A & C are equal weights (and all else is static/stationary sorta) then B accelerates Both of them, A & C towards itself. Gravity it is a "Summing" force and an "Attraction to a Common Center"

Does that help?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If Xeno states this, then Xeno is wrong. Math does not go "well Past Realities' (sic) Limits"; math only goes to the dual limits of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality). (Unless maybe your capitalizations indicate that you have a somewhat different precise meaning of "Math" and "Reality"??? . . . that you haven't let us in on. (I) had some time to re-read this, YIKES!!

Xenos' Work Proves it, (Although perhaps he didn't realize it at that time) the "Halving of the Distance forward, then, repeat" leads you/us to Numerical Values of Distances that are Well Beyond Anyones ability to Actually Measure as an aspect of Reality, well BELOW the Planck scale, and easily, and it keeps GOING ......too.

"Math only goes to the Dual Limits of reality" (huh???) since when?

Math is a Language, rather 'open ended' in its' desciptive abilities, you know (∞ = n + 1)....and on - and on - and on - and on - and on - and on.....etc.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Dude... are you kidding me? On that very page that you linked, they proved that all masses fall at the same speed. Oh BTW (I) went back to that page, and (I) do NOT see any Proving/Proof of that 'fact' ......although, it is Stated/Said .....but it is NOT proven.....there.

Stay Cool :cool: "Dude"...

[OfficeShredder]

Asks the 'Highlighted" so the responce (I) gave, stands as valid.....

No, the response you gave is not valid. Earlier, you claimed that the 20 kg mass not only was pulled on by earth, but was pulled on by itself towards earth. This ability to apply a gravitational force to oneself implies that an astronaut, alone in space, should be able to apply a gravitational force to himself in order to accelerate in a certain direction. Which direction is it?

If B is between A & C and A & C are equal weights (and all else is static/stationary sorta) then B accelerates Both of them, A & C towards itself. Gravity it is a "Summing" force and an "Attraction to a Common Center"

Does that help?

No, because, if you notice, B never causes itself to move towards A and C. Likewise, a 20kg mass does not make itself move faster towards the earth

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

No, the response you gave is not valid. Earlier, you claimed that the 20 kg mass not only was pulled on by earth, but was pulled on by itself towards earth. This ability to apply a gravitational force to oneself implies that an astronaut, alone in space, should be able to apply a gravitational force to himself in order to accelerate in a certain direction. Which direction is it? thats' confusing and NOT what (I) had said/typed, (I) had 'stated' that the 20 kilo weight has/is mass, ergo has its' own gravitational field....

So, Yes! (I) said that Both Masses have gravitational Fields and each one of them is acting with/upon the Other as to add/sum ......to one.

No, because, if you notice, B never causes itself to move towards A and C. Likewise, a 20kg mass does not make itself move faster towards the earth.Just because something doesn't 'move' in gravities' treatment/action of/in reality well, it can be a meaningless 'reading', like the rock, Sitting on the Surface as, if you turn the gravity off then Law of Conservation of Angular momentum takes over and it FLIES off into space, so gravity was actively holding it there, an Energy field was actively holding it at rest.

So ..... More?

[tsolkas]

Dear Sirs.

ATTENTION!!!

A body’s inertial mass Μi and its gravitational mass Μg are always equal, i.e. Μi=Mg .This conclusion, is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. (see, Experiments: I. Newton, R. Eotvos, R.H Dicke, Vladimir Braginsky, e.t.c )

ATTENTION!!!

But, these two masses Mi and Mg, are never equivalent to each other as Einstein erroneously asserts in the “Equivalence Principle” of the General Theory of Relativity.

This is, the great error of Einstein!!!!


Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

A body’s inertial mass Μi and its gravitational mass Μg are always equal, i.e. Μi=Mg .This conclusion, is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. (see, Experiments: I. Newton, R. Eotvos, R.H Dicke, Vladimir Braginsky, e.t.c )

ATTENTION!!!

But, these two masses Mi and Mg, are never equivalent to each other as Einstein erroneously asserts in the “Equivalence Principle” of the General Theory of Relativity.You might be interested in my good friend Mario Rabinowitz's, February 2006, paper: "A Theory of Quantum Gravity may not be Possible Because Quantum Mechanics Violates the Equivalence Principle," (http://www.CQthus.com/Mario/EP) published in the Cornell University Library's “a r x i v.org” e-journal. [Note: “a r x i v.org” is spaced to work around forum SPAM filter.]

This is, the great error of Einstein!!!!You are a bit strong, considering your comparative credentials, with your condemnation of Einstein and the ranking of his errors.

Einstein never thought of General Relativity as more than a limited contrivance.

It was the sycophants that followed that bestowed an aura of infallibility on his work. Einstein knew better.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.

[tsolkas]

Friends,

Sorry,why you doubt?

The problem is very simple!
Equivalence principle (weak and strong) are incorrect.

I persist, ( and sorry for this).

Ι request you studied carefully e.g the book:

" Was Einstein right?"
by

Clifford M. Will

CHAPTER 7, pict. 7.1
and my web site.


Friends,
Today, the propaganda for the Relativity Theory, is very big, (magazines, Universities, Professors, e.t.c), but the truth is ONE.!!!

EINSTEIN IS WRONG 100%!!!,

e.g see, " The Egg of Colombus" (my web site).


Christos Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

The problem is very simple!
Equivalence principle (weak and strong) are incorrect.If you so believe your beliefs are "incorrect" . . . both concerning the problem and its simplicity.

There are no links on your post; so, I am unable to determine where the mistakes are that have lead you to such a ridiculous conclusion concerning the "equivalence" of Nature.

My good friend Mario Rabinowitz has published an excellent paper that partially supports your view.

See: A Theory of Quantum Gravity May Not Be Possible Because Quantum Mechanics Violates The Equivalence Principle (http://www.CQthus.com/Mario/EP).

You are correct; Einstein's theory was mistaken. Not in that there is an "equivalence"; but, with what it is that is "equivalent." Einstein's theories, mistakenly, defined "time" in a circular manner without an understanding of the geometry of its "clock"; and, thus, did not fully understand the "equivalance" of time's unit.

I doubt if any of your references can improve on Einstein or Rabinowitz. If they can you should be in line for a Nobel; because you must understand what a "unit" of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) is, to understand what is actually "equivalent."

I have seen nothing from you that indicates any new deep understanding of Nature. Though, if you have such, you should be able to state it succinctly and heuristically in a post that doesn't require examining a book to digest its gist.

I persist, ( and sorry for this).No need to be sorry; just be a bit more definitive and precise. You are on to something concerning Standard Model relativity; but, not concerning the concept of Natural equivalence.

Ι request you studied carefully e.g the book:

" Was Einstein right?"
by

Clifford M. Will

CHAPTER 7, pict. 7.1
and my web site.I would be glad to critique what ever portion of your web site is applicable; if you would summarize it in a post.

...Today, the propaganda for the Relativity Theory, is very big, (magazines, Universities, Professors, e.t.c), but the truth is ONE.!!!I concur. I doubt, though, if you understand what you are saying.

EINSTEIN IS WRONG 100%!!!As I have pointed out previously, Einstein's theories may have flaws . . . as do all theories. That's why they are theories. However, no one understood this better than Einstein; thus, for you to state as you do, concerning Einstein, personally, "IS WRONG 100%!!!"

e.g see, " The Egg of Colombus" (my web site).It would be nice if you could provide either a link or URL.

[neiamaralf]

I don't accept just the first postulate of especial theory, the velocity of light measure by a observer is independent of the velocity of observer, it's the first error, all subsequent errors are consequence of this...

[Epsilon=One]

I don't accept just the first postulate of especial theory, the velocity of light measure by a observer is independent of the velocity of observer, it's the first error, all subsequent errors are consequence of this...You may well be correct. However, the difference imparted by "the velocity of the observer" is beyond any of our current tools of measurement . . . except for the mind.

Why do you conclude as you do? Or is it just a hunch, with little basis?

[neiamaralf]

Hi...
Just it, we don't have the necessary precision to measure this diference.
Like i conclude?
It's a general law in physics.
The question are... Like Einsten conclude it?
Other thing about general theory:
efects of space-time don't will be efects of ether over matter?

[Epsilon=One]

Just it, we don't have the necessary precision to measure this diference.Ah, but we do. Remember, in the prior post that I referred to . . . the mind.

That's all Einstein needed. That should be all that you need to resolve the issue.

Einstein's rationalization was quite counterintuitive. Can't you do better with the knowledge that we have today?

You should not make strong assertions that may mislead those that have little considered the problem until you know what you are basing your opinion upon.

There is nothing wrong with wild "gedankens"; in fact they are quite useful; just don't be so assertive until you can argue the issue.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

this is all that (I) see.... from that user


Remove user from ignore list Epsilon=One
This message is hidden because Epsilon=One is on your ignore list.

Got a responce ...to bad (I)'ve NO CLUE what it is, neither will (I) look.

Apparently all of those GO AWAY postings didn't get through to it's headspace...

[tsolkas]

A STATISTICS
(for the all physicists of this forum)


Friends,

In the follow example:

Example: If, for instance, we simultaneously let a tank (armored fighting vehicle) and a cork fall freely from a height h above the surface of the Earth (Moon, Asteroid, etc), then the cork will fall at a greater velocity than the tank!!! These two bodies will never fall at the same velocity as Galileo erroneously asserts based on his Leaning Tower of Pisa Experiment.


The above conclusion is right or wrong?


Please, you complete the following form:

.................
is right


................
is wrong



.........................
signature





Regards,

Christos Tsolkas

[ati3414]

Relativity is always....
.................
right



Christos Tsolkas is always
................
wrong


ati3414

[Epsilon=One]

Relativity is always....
.................
right



Christos Tsolkas is always
................
wrong


ati3414I take this as a postulate.

[neiamaralf]

I don't understand yours arguments.
Christos Tsolkas can be right, human race is arrogant.
Ex:.
Einstein has based your theory in previous work of Fitzgerald e Lorentz and these has believed in ether existence.
Einstein simply don't can manipulate the ether then he discard it.
In words of the great brazilian physicist Cesar Lattes, Einstein delay physics in 100 years...

[Epsilon=One]

...human race is arrogant.I would like to think that there are some exceptions that you don't seem to consider.
Einstein simply don't can manipulate the ether then he discard it.Give the guy some credit. Others did most of the promotion of his work. Einstein knew better than anyone where the fallacies of SR & GR were to be found. Including the theoretical sycophants that followed with worship of said theories as near infallible.

In words of the great brazilian physicist Cesar Lattes, Einstein delay physics in 100 years...If such a statement was actually made, it is quite difficult to consider Lattes as "great" no matter where he was from.

Such a statement neglects to consider how much Einstein moved physics into the modern world using little more overhead than his mind. Certainly, he deserves some bit of an offset.

There is no offset for the fifty to seventy-five years that the Big Bang theory has delayed theoretical physics.

[Epsilon=One]

(GR) It's a general law in physics.
No. Theoretical physics is just that . . . theory; not law.

Something like the Inverse Square Law is law; and, it hardly qualifies, as currently understood by most persons, as being physics.

[neiamaralf]

No. Theoretical physics is just that . . . theory; not law.

Something like the Inverse Square Law is law; and, it hardly qualifies, as currently understood by most persons, as being physics.
Sorry, i'm brazilian and my english is wrong.
What i want say are :
It's obvious(or not), you are right, but it's less insane than Einstein assumption.

Other thing, Lattes has discovery the meson-pi

[neiamaralf]

Look this diferential equation to 1d body movement in ether :
x..*(Do+A*x.)-A*a*x.+a*(De-Do)=0

where x..=d2x/d2t;
x.=dx/dt;
Do=initial density of body;
A=density coef. growing;
a=acceleration;
De=ether density;
Can you resolve it?

[tsolkas]

I don't understand yours arguments.
Christos Tsolkas can be right, human race is arrogant.
Ex:.
Einstein has based your theory in previous work of Fitzgerald e Lorentz and these has believed in ether existence.
Einstein simply don't can manipulate the ether then he discard it.
In words of the great brazilian physicist Cesar Lattes, Einstein delay physics in 100 years...


My friend,

for me you are great physicist!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!


Regards,

Christos Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry, i'm brazilian and my english is wrong.Your English is very good (as are all your women that I have met) comparied to my Brazilian (Portuguese).

What i want say are :
It's obvious(or not), you are right, but it's less insane than Einstein assumption.Possibly so. But with many more shoulders to climb upon; and, with much better tools of observation.

Other thing, Lattes has discovery the meson-piWhat I was trying to say (rather clumsily) was that you were most likely quoting Lattes out of context.

Researchers I admire. They keep the theorists on their toes (or ass).

[Epsilon=One]

Look this diferential equation to 1d body movement in ether :
x..*(Do+A*x.)-A*a*x.+a*(De-Do)=0

where x..=d2x/d2t;
x.=dx/dt;
Do=initial density of body;
A=density coef. growing;
a=acceleration;
De=ether density;
Can you resolve it?I dont believe that "1d" can relate to Nature. Your exercise doesn't seem to be physics so much as being little more than contrived symbolism.

What is your "ether"? If it is quanta, or intrinsic to quanta, I would ask, why does it have density?; or, what is it that is dense? Is ether not transparent? If it is not, why don't we observe it directly; and, if it is transparent, is it also ephemeral? In all cases, the question of there being density is highly suspect.

[tsolkas]

On Galileo's experiment (about the Equivalence principle) the great error of Einstein is that (Einstein) does not apply:

a. The principle of conservation of energy, and
b. The principle of conservation of momentum,for the masses m1, m2 and M (e.g M = mass of Earth),

namelly the right as Tsolkas's problem.


see, my site (www.tsolkas.gr), Galileo and Einstein are wrong !!!

But Einstein apply ONLY the Newton's Law:

F = ma and W = mg and because, F = W, is ma = mg or a = g !!!!!
for the masses m1 and m2.


This is the great error of Einstein!!!!

http://physics.nad.ru/Physics/English/pisa_txt.htm



Regards,

Christos Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

On Galileo's experiment (about the Equivalence principle) the great error of Einstein is that (Einstein) does not apply...Why do you continue with your simplicity without replying to any of my questions concerning your lack of fundamental hypotheses?

You reach conclusions based on error; and then, expect your conclusions to override what you consider to be in error.

Why continually attack Einstein? Ad hominem usually indicates a weak argument. It is the idea not the man that is important.

You cannot expect anyone to support your arguments without beginning with some fundamental concepts. Your foundations appear to be more "slippery" than are those of the concepts you attack.

[HallsofIvy]

The website also lists several "experiments" in which he simply calculates, using Newtonian physics, the result and shows (mirabile dictu!) that his result contradicts relativity!

The first "experiment" he shows, having two airplanes moving at high speed relative to one another, actually has been done and the results supported relativity!

[OfficeShredder]

I think this is the first thread in which everyone agreed the OP was wrong

EDIT: Damnit! I forgot parsons had to be an idiot

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I think this is the first thread in which everyone agreed the OP was wrong

EDIT: Damnit! I forgot parsons had to be an idiotSeeing yourself again (I) see.....

Not bad for someone who answers questions, when they have been told that the right answer is wrong...and they fall for it...Ooooops's Ya!

[Epsilon=One]

Seeing yourself again (I) see.....

Not bad for someone who answers questions, when they have been told that the right answer is wrong...and they fall for it...Ooooops's Ya!This response appears to be making OfficeShredder's point.

[tsolkas]

Dear friends,

Einstein is absolutely wrong!!!


CRITIQUE on Equivalence Principle" (new)

see, www.tsolkas.gr link:Galileo and Einstein are wrong.


Christos Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein is absolutely wrong!!!I assume that you do not understand the English meaning of the word "absolutely," which is: completely; wholly; and, entirely. Also, you continuely seem incapable of separating a person from what the person proposes as a theory.

A better use of the phrase "absolutely wrong!!!" would be that tsolkas is "absolutely wrong!!!" concerning Einstein, the person.

CRITIQUE on Equivalence Principle" (new)

see, www.tsolkas.gr link:Galileo and Einstein are wrong.The above comments concerning tsolkas/Einstein also apply to tsolkas concern with Galileo.

Considering the available observation when both Galileo and Einstein proposed their theories, I would conclude that their relative advancement of humankind's knowledge will exceed that of tsolkas' contribution.

Your link doesn't seem to easily access anything about the Equivalence Principle, per se, that I could locate.

It did prominently display the following comment:If the J. P. Cedarholm – C. H. Townes Experiment (1959) is carried out exactly as it is on a moving vehicle (e.g. on an automobile, train, etc) then it will be instantly proven whether Ether exists in Nature or not. Unfortunately, this very simple Physics experiment has never been conducted to this day and this is a great error on the part of physicists!!! If the CT Experiment (which I'm not familiar with) were "carried out...on an automobile, train, etc.," I can't image how the speeds involved would be of any help in detecting the existence of "Ether."

If you are familiar with quantum chromodynamics (QCD) or similar current theories, it would appear that their is little doubt about spontaneous emergent energy ("dark" energy); and, astrophysicists are well aware of "dark" matter; all of which indicates "whether Ether exists in Nature or not." In addition, there are many more experiments/observations that can only lead to such conclusions. What is required is a definition of what comprises said "Ether"; for this, you might peruse Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) rather than the standard model (SM) concepts that you manipulate. Concerning the manipulation of SM theory wityh calculus: Garbage in; garbage out (GIGO).

It is because of such reasoning of QCD and astrophysics that the standard models are threatened and many notable scientists realize that a "new" physics may well be required.

[tsolkas]

Equivalence principle is 100% absolutely wrong!!!



NEW!!! An interesting article :


THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE FREE-FALL OF BODIES. (Tsolkas's Laws)


see,www.tsolkas.gr , link: Galileo and Einstein are wrong!!!


The above link, is the end of the Theory of Relativity!!!



Christos A. Tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

The above link, is the end of the Theory of Relativity!!!There is little argument that "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM)/ether does exist, which seems to be your primary objection to Einstein and relativity.

In fact, recent observation has all but ended the debate concerning its existence.

That does not, as you imply, put an end to "the Theory of Relativity!!!" as you strongly assert. All theory is subject to adjustment, particularly as the tools of observation become more precise. Einstein had great doubts concerning his theories until the day of his death.

If your data is correct it supports the concepts of Pulsoid Theory, which has been around since 1955.

However, I am skeptical of your data, but I will accept the conclusions.

It is not the precision of your observation that is the most important to upset the standard models. There is an abundance of empirical and observational evidence that the standard models are faulty. The standard models don't even reconcile with one another.

What is important, that I can find nowhere in any of your work, is: Why?

You must present a theory to explain your observations.

I suggest you study Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis), which should point you in a direction that will help you theorize.

If you are going to tear down fundamental error in theory you must have something to replace it with.

Most all astrophysicists are aware of the ludicrousness of the Big Bang; however, they are reluctant to think otherwise until they have an alternative explanation. All physics is similar in this regard. No one seriously doubts the metaphysical foundations of the "science"; the problem is finding a "new" physics that is more logical.

Statements like you make, without supporting theory that furthers reconcilation, increases the difficulty of searching for truth, beyond the limiting confines of academia, by everyone else that understands the current affronts to reason.

[tsolkas]

RELATIVITY THEORY: THE GREAT PLANE OF PHYSICS!!!

Two very simple questions, to all physicists of world.

QUESTION 1: The conclusion of Galileo's experiment on the free-fall of bodies (experiment of the Tower of Pisa), is RIGHT or WRONG ?


QUESTION 2 : If, the above conclusion of Galileo's experiment is WRONG, then Equivalence Principle of the General Theory of Relativity, is RIGHT or WRONG ?



I request, who they is your answer ?


Thanks,

Christos A. Tsolkas

[tsolkas]

HOW WE CAN PROVE THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG USING A SPIMPLE INTERFEROMETER!

Sirs ( Universities, Professors, Researchers etc),


Why are you spending huge amounts of money in various complex experiments for the verification of the Relativity Theory, such as the Gravity Probe b experiment, etc, etc, etc)?

The solution is simple!


THE SOLUTION:

In your laboratory, by using a simple interfometer that costs little money (see my experiment 3 at www.tsolkas.gr) it will immediately and with a 100% certainty be proven whether the Ether exists in nature or not and, consequently, if the whole Relativity Theory (Special and General) is correct or not!!!


Sincerely, my question is as follows:

Haw can’t you, the great Universities, Professors etc, see this simple “solution”?


I am sorry to say that this fact will be quoted in the history of Physics and that the future Physicists will be laughing...!!! while drinking their coffee or tea…!!!



Regards,

Christos A. Tsolkas

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Uhmm, (I) suggested, (To some others) some years back, that all you needed to do was to turn the interferometer perpendicular to the Earths' surface, and you could prove(?) why you cannot detect the Solar etherial 'Motion'/'Activity'/'Activities'/'Action'....but you will be detecting the etherial effects of the Earths' gravitational field.

So how 'new' is what you are saying? :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

Haw can’t you, the great Universities, Professors etc, see this simple “solution”?

I am sorry to say that this fact will be quoted in the history of Physics and that the future Physicists will be laughing...!!! while drinking their coffee or tea…!!!What you say adds little or nothing to the search for truth.

I am sure that all world-cla ss physicists have little doubt that all current physics is based upon the metaphysical forces of the Standard Models; and, many physicists also understand that Standard Model mathematics is based upon unprovable postulates as established by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) (GIT).

Even Einstein was well aware that GR was merely a contrivance that he spent much of his life unsucessfully trying to reconcile.

It is not enough to doubt or disprove current theory. You must indicate the "Why" of current error and/or provide the "Why" of alternative theory.

To begin with non-fundamental or erroneous postulates only adds to the present miasma.

[tsolkas]

www.wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas6.pdf

[sadjoker]

Einstein is real genius and u fool never try over react coz many thousand fools are trying in vain to prove that the theory of relativity is wrong.
But no one cannot coz they cant prove its wrong coz its perfect theory

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein is real genius and u fool never try over react coz many thousand fools are trying in vain to prove that the theory of relativity is wrong.
But no one cannot coz they cant prove its wrong coz its perfect theoryEinstein well understood that the theories of special relativity and general relativity are far from "perfect" theories.

[tsolkas]

EXAMPLE

From the top of the "Tower of Pisa", we release a mass m1=1kgr made from cotton wool..
We then repeat the experiment with a mass m2=10^18kgr , consisting of the material of a neutron star.
If υ1 is the velocity of mass m1 as it falls onto the surface of the Earth and υ2 is the velocity of mass m2 (as it falls onto the surface of the Earth), we are seeking::
How much greater the velocity with which the cotton wool mass falls onto the surface of the Earth is, compared to the velocity of the neutron star mass.
The mass of the Earth is taken as M=6.10^24kgr and masses m1 and m2 are considered point masses


see, solution at www.tsolkas.gr link, Galileo and Einstein are wrong. (The non-equivalence principle of masses and fields )



tsolkas

[Epsilon=One]

see…www.tsolkas.gr link, Galileo and Einstein are wrong. For once, I agree with most all your general conclusions concerning the state of academic, theoretical physics.

I don't agree with your finding fault with those whose thinking, in their day, wrong as some of it is, helped move forward our quest for knowledge.

I don't agree with your assailing the physics community for not knowing general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) are flawed, or possibly, only incomplete . . . this they know.

What is unconscionable is that the theoretical physics’ community has “circled the wagons” and has hidden the truth of the extent of their dependence upon metaphysics from the lay public and their own slavish acolytes; thus, the level of general ignorance concerning reliance upon enervating metaphysics in everyday life for most all persons.

Today, academic, theoretical physicists have great fear of engaging in public debate concerning the metaphysical underpinning of their discipline that depends upon forces, dimensions, and mathematics . . . all fundamentally undefined.

How can you discuss motion when you cannot even define time?

How do you open up a discussion with these academics? Where are they on forums such as this? Why is such participation career ending?

Pointing out flaws in current theory does little to change academic status quo. You must offer rational, alternative theory. See Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PT) (PT) that, unlike current theory, begins with an irreducible Postulate (www.101123.com/PPT) and which minimalizes standard model metaphysics with the rationality of IPSO (www.101123.com/IPSO), which assures the maintenance of that knowledge that is rational.

[tsolkas]

Three interesting experiments:

SR:experiment-10


GR: experiment-11


GR: experiment-12


at www.tsolkas.gr


tsolkas

[C. Michael Turner]

Whether, you zip up one zipper or one hundred zippers, the rate of zipping has limits, the gravitational constant shows you that. I know that you do not have a clue as to what I am stating but Einstein, Newton specifically, did get it right even though both don't know why. Okay quickly, each part of your pants is a wave, each half zipper, wave combines with out changing the peaks and valleys to align resulting in your pants coming together.
The missing mechanism that creates gravity is the same principle, each mass falling, independent of size is continously decaying into a gravitational wave and the waves all align at the same rate governer by the overall rate of decay of all matter dependent upon distance and wave field distribution. Mombo jumbo aside- everything falls at the zipping rate with limits of friction on earth and limits of zipping, Wave Synchronization, constructive wave interference, in space.
tootles

[C. Michael Turner]

time is the nature of change of energy decay into the gravitational wave-field, and relative time is the restrictions imposed by the wave synchronizations and desynchronizations of overall wave field interactions.

[Lihualee]

Thanks! Bump!

[xersanozgen]

Congratulations, sincerely.

Autopsy Report of Special Relativity www.infoyay.com

Publisher: Excuse me; probably your study will be seen as a pseudo science, and will not be taken seriously. The theory of Special Relativity is certificated by the science and is adopted even as an idol by the entire world.

Author: Yes, indeed I have no privilege to underestimate the existed paradigm, its arguments are strong. For the ones who have sufficiency of knowledge and the authorized ones, it is normal to assume and defend the theory because it is required by the postulate that they took as reference.

Publisher: So you say "Einstein's postulate is wrong" There are experiments and those have strong proofs.

Author: Our decisions and judgments exist as they are dependent to our intellectual reference frames. And the origins of our intellectual references are axiom and postulates; these are treated as clear truths - not needed to be proved. But these basic references, formed not in a scientific discipline but more as a blurred model or -as a result of imbibed repeated perceptions' in- an imagination level. Besides, they are inevitably under influence of local conditions. In fact the subject of SR is complexity of the space-time, an effort of adaptation physics rules to universal scale. Analyzing a universal subject by a local postulate is the reason of problem. Human met also with this problem at Galileo's event. It seems as a nature's secret from local frame (the Earth); but it is very simple and natural from the Sun or other external reference frames.

Publisher: And have you reach to appropriate results by restoring this postulate using scientific principles?

Author: Yes. I research the postulate which is a basic for interpretation of speed of light, by intellectual method like microsurgery way. And I defined another alternative, in accordance of this new key fact; I re-consider the complexity of space-time from the start. The appropriate results of new principles over light kinematics are their determination of The Hubble constant as it is the unique value-as it should be.

Publisher: So you meant this will be a revolution for well-known SR?

Author: I have no doubts. This work will give peace to the science people with an amateur enthusiasm who activated their own judging performance and could perceive inappropriateness in the theory.

Publisher: What was the reason for you to relate this subject to passion for mystery?

Author: Einstein was a mystery hunter in science area besides being a passionate curious. His correspondence with Tagore over mysticism and reality is interesting. Doubtless, passion for mystery has a big and significant place in human life and it is powerful enough that it has to be stopped. As humans, we found ourselves on an ordinary planet; with the help of our improving intellectual skills we reached the question “Why everything is as it is?” and realized we faced a great mystery. Even from the first human being, we have a common file in our brains-still processing- for significance of life and universe. We add every kind of information, small fragments of information and intuition to that file, do intellectual synthesis and we have a strong enthusiasm to reach the result. This powerful enthusiasm or our hunger for answers to our philosophical questions in our struggle for seek the meaning of life and universe, keep us interested in mystical events; by that we keep “hope” held in reserve against our desperation; we can say we are balancing.

Publisher: So, how you call this explanation of yours?

Author: I would rather preferred call it as “Second Galileo Event”. My intension is to make The Special Relativity understandable and clear the confusions in mind with help of a key fact as in world turns around itself not the sun turns around world. I believe the ones who felt –that “The king is naked” as in the story- that something's mistaken in the theory by the help of this book will improve their intellectual self-confidence by arguments.

Publisher: Can you please make a small summery of your book?

Author: In this popular science book, there is a deep and detailed autopsy over the technical content of Special Relativity Theory that attract whole world and the traps were set by specialties of light to our intellect are disclosed. The objections of theory and its explanations, has written theoretically as a discussion with Einstein. Researches hasn’t been limited by inappropriate results of theory, the subject has been cleared by restoration of postulate and meticulous definitions. As a conclusion, new concept to use instead of special relativity theory has been defined and exampled (the example for how seriously functional is new concept is subject of my other book called “The Age and Dimensions of Universe-Exact Solution”). The understanding of Special Relativity Theory has been added the list of “suggested experiments of wonderful experiences” by life-coaches. The new concept as an alternative of theory and the master theory itself is useful in universal scale to improve intellectual and philosophical vision of life.

[tsolkas]

Two interesting experiments:


Experiment-15.

Experiment-16.


at www.tsolkas.gr



tsolkas

[dwantv]

Both the House and the Senate passed Barack Obama's economic stimulus package on Friday, and despite the fact that he didn't get the bi-partisan support he wanted - the President is calling the bill "a major milestone on our road to recovery.'' Obama also said that he will continue to reach out to Republicans despite the fact that he couldn't get them to sign on to his economic deal. Some GOP reps said they didn't feel like the stimulus money was allocated properly and others said they simply just didn't have time to read the bill before the vote.

[tsolkas]

A "New Geometry"!

see, www.tsolkas.gr link: Generalised Geometry


tsolkas

[tsolkas]

Tsolkas-VIDEO


video-01

video-02

at www.tsolkas.gr


Christos A. Tsolkas