Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 251 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#27014 - 07/08/08 08:58 AM Tsolkas or Einstein ?
ABCD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 33
Equivalence Principle is absolutely wrong!!!

see,

The "gyroscope experiment". (experiment 14, at www.tsolkas.gr)


This experiment is the end of Relativity Theory...!!!!




tsolkas

Top
.
#27016 - 07/08/08 09:36 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
ABCD:
Your link is bad. Can you fix it or provide another?

Amaranth
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#27020 - 07/08/08 04:23 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
ABCD:
Your link is bad. Can you fix it or provide another?

Amaranth


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Amaranth

Replace- )with / -should fix it.

Mike

Top
#27031 - 07/09/08 04:16 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Mike Kremer]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#27060 - 07/10/08 10:27 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: ABCD
...Equivalence Principle is absolutely wrong...
It's just "slightly wrong" - nevertheless such difference becomes pronounced at cosmic scale or near black holes.



The inertial force always differs from gravity force, having no center of action - whereas real source of gravitational field has always center of mass. The difference is very subtle, though - so that Einstein's theory remains quite OK.

Top
#27417 - 08/01/08 10:21 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Zephir]
ABCD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 33

Top
#28805 - 12/12/08 09:45 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
ABCD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 33

Top
#28976 - 12/30/08 11:24 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
ABCD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 33
Physics and Mathematics.

The "New Mathematics"!


http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/mathematics-01.html



tsolkas

Top
#28991 - 12/31/08 08:51 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
There are several experimental results that confirm relativity, including muon decay, Kaviola's double-photon experiment, and the USNO's flying clock experiment.





Top
#29000 - 01/01/09 06:54 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
There are several experimental results that confirm relativity..
..indeed, here are several experimental results, confirming geocentric model as well... By AWT every theory can become relevant from certain perspective, thus leading to testable predictions.

Top
#29008 - 01/02/09 07:43 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
There are several experimental results that confirm relativity..


Originally Posted By: Zephir
..indeed, here are several experimental results, confirming geocentric model as well... By AWT every theory can become relevant from certain perspective, thus leading to testable predictions.


It's not clear to me that AWT is a theory or that it has any relation to the topic. For all I can tell AWT and Tsolkas should both be under NQS.


Top
#29011 - 01/03/09 12:04 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: ABCD]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: ABCD
Equivalence Principle is absolutely wrong!!!

see,

The "gyroscope experiment". (experiment 14, at www.tsolkas.gr)


This experiment is the end of Relativity Theory...!!!!

tsolkas


Wanna bet? In five years, Einstein will still be considered one of the greatest scientists of all time and Tsolkas will still be considered a crank.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#29013 - 01/03/09 04:00 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Iztaci]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Thanks to TFF and Izzy for the light of rationality in the topic.

How unfortunate that the internet is saturated with half-baked ideas from unqualified people who appear to believe that they have a democratic right to claim whatever they like as the irrefutable truth. There's no place for democracy in science.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29016 - 01/03/09 05:35 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: redewenur]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Thanks to TFF and Izzy for the light of rationality in the topic.

How unfortunate that the internet is saturated with half-baked ideas from unqualified people who appear to believe that they have a democratic right to claim whatever they like as the irrefutable truth. There's no place for democracy in science.


Thanks redewenur. Nice to hear it when someone else rejects the malarky. Being overwhelmed by ninnies can make you paranoid.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#29017 - 01/03/09 07:39 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: redewenur]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: redewenur
..unfortunate that the internet is saturated with half-baked ideas ..
From Holy Church perspective the Galileo ideas were half-baked too. Most of phenomena, he promoted as an evidence of heliocentric model could be explained by geocentric model as well - this is the reason, why Holy Church rejected them.

The final evidence was given just some three hundreds years later by confirmation of stellar parallax by Bessell. Until this moment the Galileo ideas were speculative as well.

We can ask, from which moment the idea becomes ready instead of half-baked, after then. Even quite rough ideas can help the knowledgeable people in further research. While trolls cannot understand fully fledged ideas neither (.."A word is enough to the wise. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse"...)

Originally Posted By: redewenur
..thanks ...for the light of rationality..
My stance is rational as well. For example, try to imagine, the civilization will be threaten by new unknown virus. Would you wait for fully baked ideas after then? Should we exterminate the life species or new ideas just because we have no usage for them yet? If you don't like ideas of Tsolkas, why not to simply ignore them? Some less ignorant people could interested about them instead of you.

Ludwig Börne: "Pythagoras offered a hecatomb of oxen, when he discovered the forty-seventh proposition of Euclid - since then every ox trembles, when a new truth is discovered.." (Zephir: Well, it doesn't know apparently, that this hecatomb was made of flour..)

Top
#29018 - 01/03/09 09:24 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Zephir]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Quote:
My stance is rational as well. For example, try to imagine, the civilization will be threaten by new unknown virus. Would you wait for fully baked ideas after then? Should we exterminate the life species or new ideas just because we have no usage for them yet? If you don't like ideas of Tsolkas, why not to simply ignore them? Some less ignorant people could interested about them instead of you.


There is nothing rational about throwing unresearched medications at unknown pathogens. Stupid idea.

Exterminate species? Who advocated that? Stupid question.

"Like" the ideas of Tsolkas? What does "like" have to do with whether ideas are sensible? Tsolkas' ideas are stupid. Ignoring stupid is dangerous. Ask the children of the Challenger astronauts. Ask the descendents of the Gulag prisoners. Ask a thousand lobotomy recipients.

Ignoring stupid is stupid. It’s as stupid as… stupid.

And finally; If you advocate ignoring ideas you don't like, why didn't you?

PS My first post mistakenly called the Challenger Shuttle the Discovery. My tang got all tungled up. Sorry 'bout that.


Edited by Iztaci (01/03/09 10:01 PM)
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#29024 - 01/04/09 09:02 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Iztaci]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
There is nothing rational about throwing unresearched medications at unknown pathogens. Stupid idea..
Maybe it's stupid, but most of medicals was revealed and tested just by such silly empirical way. After all, every medication was unresearched in its very beginning - the penicillin and aspirin is no exception.

Try to imagine, you're dying by unknown disease. Somebody is saying, the aspirin MAY be the right cure. Moreore, we know, such cure was never tested seriously. So it still MAY be possible, just the aspirine is the right medicine for you.

Will you try it or not? If not - why? Is such stance rational?

By many evolutionary psychologists the belief is highly rational stance in many situations. The obstinate disbelievers were always eaten by crocodilles first, so that some selection has taken place and mankind is highly religious by its very nature.

In adition, Aether Wave Theory explains, how the unsubstantiated disbelief into new concept becomes pathological and in its consequence leads into introduction of new level of belief due emergence of many negative stances. Every rational stance becomes biased or even counterproductive in less or larger scope. It demonstrates, how the rational approach of mainstream science can become a brake of further evolution or even worse: how starchy positivism brings a new level of naive postmodern speculations into science.

After then, rational disbelief in some theory simply becomes irrational disbelief in its negation. It doesn't matter, if you believe in God, or you're believe, God doesn't exist. Unsubstantiated stance is always a belief - no matter how we're calling it. The neutral people are called a agnostics, not atheists. This is because of symmetry of Popper methodology: every negation of some theory becomes a new theory, which should be validated and tested with the same caution, like the original theory. Therefore unsubstantiated disbelief cannot become a relevant clue for further research.

Characteristics of Pathological skepticism :

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological


Where is the exact boundary between "healthy skepticism" and "unhealthy ignorance", after then?

Top
#29025 - 01/04/09 09:24 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Zephir]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
The history of Aether concept is pregnant example of pathological approach. The scientists considered sparse Aether concept at the end of 19th century. Well, it didn't work, as Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) has demonstrated. So they refuted Aether concept as a whole, simply ignoring dual dense Aether concept.

Now we're finding with surprise, trivial dense Aether concept was never considered seriously - just because of such unsubstantiated generalization and belief in Aether nonexistence.

Top
#29026 - 01/04/09 09:33 PM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Iztaci]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Tsolkas' ideas are stupid.
Well, maybe yes, maybe not - who cares?

But science has not stupidity in its list of criterions. It just cares, whether some idea is confirmed by experiments - or not.

So my question is, if Tsolkas' ideas are wrong or not? Can you prove it?

Top
#29034 - 01/05/09 01:20 AM Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Can you prove it? "

Is it worth trying to prove or disprove?

Scientists do not have an infinite amount of time and money.

Like the rest of us, they have to make decisions every day about how to allocate precious resources. They don't like responding to every single crank who comes along. Why? Because cranks never accept "no" for an answer.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.