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 Now
0 members (), 70 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
An interesting experiment!

http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experiment-22.html


Christos A. Tsolkas

.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Cool that somebody actually went to the effort to do an experiment instead of just blabbing about it!! Good on Tsolkas.

However he hasn't eliminated the effect of vibration. I guarantee that if I install an accelerometer on the mirror table, I'll discover much more non-inertial movement while it's driving than while it's stationary.

A simple way to solve this would be to mount the experiment the the perpendicular direction, then go for a drive and make sure the image still looks the same as when it was stationary. However that still won't guarantee there isn't directional vibration doing it.

So his conclusion isn't valid.


Last edited by kallog; 05/08/10 01:19 PM.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
1
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
1
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
The mistakes of Einstein...!!!


http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/mistakes-einstein.html


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: 1234
The mistakes of Einstein...!!!
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/mistakes-einstein.html
Christos A. Tsolkas


Oh you're just another Einstin-was-wrong nutter? Come on, you've gone to the considerable trouble of doing an experiment, you've clearly not bothered to perform it adequately, so you know you're fooling yourself.

Normally I'd read the link, but I can see from the URL that it's just going to be more of the same rubbish that people have been spouting for 100 years. I know you won't have added anything new. And I know you won't have bothered to find the disproofs of any of your faulty arguments.

Wouldn't it be great if they taught critical thinking skills in school.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Kallog,

I have a question for yoy:

Question: Based on experiment – 14 (The experiment of the Gyroscope at www.tsolkas.gr), is the “equivalence principle” of the General Theory of Relativity correct or wrong (Yes or No)?

I would like your answer....


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ABCD
Kallog,
Question: Based on experiment – 14 (The experiment of the Gyroscope at www.tsolkas.gr), is the “equivalence principle” of the General Theory of Relativity correct or wrong (Yes or No)?


Hi. Why not. :P

Add to experiment 14 a 3rd case. Here the chamber is attached to the string but instead of rotating it's being pulled through open space with acceleration = 9.8m/s^2.

Of these 3 cases, the two which have no gravity are clearly distinguishable. The rotating one has a moving gyroscope, and the linear acceleration has a stationary gyroscope.

If both cases had uniform acceleration this would violate the self-equivalence principle (my invention) that says a uniform acceleration is indistinguishable from an identical uniform acceleration. Therefore either the rotating chamber or the pulled chamber is not experiencing uniform acceleration.

In conclusion I don't think the experiment 14 shows that the eq. principle is either right or wrong.

#34972 06/15/10 03:37 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: buffyscrubs
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

You took the words right out of my mouth:

Originally Posted By: redewenur, #29013 - 2009-01-03 10:00 AM
...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.

Glad to see that you agree, but it's good form to use the quote button. Do you have anything to add?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
He doesn't really agree, he's a spam robot. They're getting cleverly sophisticated in this forum!



Last edited by kallog; 06/15/10 04:12 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, I know. Just playing along to see if get a response. It's alarming to find someone agreeing with me, even if it's only a mindless spam robot grin


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Dear friends.

Relativity Theory is wrong 100%, because:

I. Equivalence Principle is wrong,

see,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experiment-14.html

II. Advance of Mercury's perihelion is wrong, because:

The difference of 43´´/century with astronomic observations as regards the advance of Mercury’s perihelion is not attributed to the curvature of space-time around the Sun, as the Theory of Relativity erroneously maintains.
The 43´´/century of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion (as demonstrated above) are due to the revolution of the Sun around the center of mass of our Solar system, a fact that until today has never been taken into account when calculating the advance of Mercury’s perihelion. Finally, after everything discussed in this paper, the Theory of Relativity should be unquestionably deemed erroneous.

see,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/proof-perihlion.html

III. Experimental verification,

see,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experimental_verification.html


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ABCD

Relativity Theory is wrong 100%, because:
see,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experiment-14.html



Hi again. I already showed why that doesn't show relativity to be wrong.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
See, Book:

WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT?

By

Clifford M. Will



http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/777.jpg


Aluminum...Moon...and The Earth ...same velosity..!!!!! wink

hahaha.........hahaha....!!!!!! crazy

Albert Einstein you are WRONG!!!


The right see, at www.tsolkas.gr



Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Care to elaborate?

Have you discovered that GR is inconsistent with observations?

Have you discovered that GR is internally inconsistent?

Please show how.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
As a first (or zeroeth) order approximation, we might treat the Earth or Moon as point masses (just as with the aluminum ball). Is that author seriously claiming that Einstein was ignorant of tidal forces?

The Earth and Moon would not necessarily have equivalent acceleration in an Einsteinian universe any more than a Newtownian universe. Whether it's sufficient to think of them as point masses depends on the distances involved and the precision required.

Why would we use a point mass approximation? Because it's easier and quicker to compute. We don't need a computer simulation to get good results. Also, even in a computer, the actual situation being modeled might be so computation intensive that a mesh (or other) simulation might be impractical. OR, it could be that a hybrid simulation is in order where some things are modeled at low resolution (point mass) and others high (solid with fine mesh).

It's not a limitation of Einstein. Scientists try to use the simplest math they can get away with.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I thought he was talking about the 'weight' of the internal gravitational field of the object. Being a kind of energy it should be influenced by gravity.

They seemed to be saying the two theories - GR with lots of cancellations, and that other one, gave different predictions about this effect.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
SPHERICAL SHELL PROBLEM


PROBLEM

In Fig. 1, http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tsolk.prob.jpg .a spherical shell of radius R and mass m1 is given
A point mass m2 lies at the center of the spherical shell m1 (m1<m2).
We, now, let them perform a free fall from a heigt h inside the gravitatonal field of a mass M.

Question:
With respect to an inertial frame of reference S, during the free fall of the masses m1 and m2, inside the gravitational field of the mass M, will the point mass m2 remain at the center of the spherical shell m1 or will it move away from the center?

Note: I claim that, during the free fall of the two masses m1 and m2 inside the gravitational field of the mass M, the point mass m2 will move away from the centre of the spherical shell m1.

Consequently:
1) Galileo ( Experiment of the tower of Pisa ) is wrong,and
2) The Equivalence Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is a mistaken principle of Physics.



More, .. http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/principle-equivalence.html


Christos A. Tsolkas.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Also, see:

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

BY

A.EINSTEIN, H.A LORENTZ, H. WEYL, H. MINKOWSKI

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/1.jpg


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ABCD


Sorry, you haven't taken experiment 14 off you site after I showed it was wrong. So there's no point in anybody bothering to disprove this one either.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Originally Posted By: ABCD
SPHERICAL SHELL PROBLEM


PROBLEM

In Fig. 1, http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tsolk.prob.jpg .a spherical shell of radius R and mass m1 is given
A point mass m2 lies at the center of the spherical shell m1 (m1<m2).
We, now, let them perform a free fall from a heigt h inside the gravitatonal field of a mass M.

Question:
With respect to an inertial frame of reference S, during the free fall of the masses m1 and m2, inside the gravitational field of the mass M, will the point mass m2 remain at the center of the spherical shell m1 or will it move away from the center?

Note: I claim that, during the free fall of the two masses m1 and m2 inside the gravitational field of the mass M, the point mass m2 will move away from the centre of the spherical shell m1.

Consequently:
1) Galileo ( Experiment of the tower of Pisa ) is wrong,and
2) The Equivalence Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is a mistaken principle of Physics.



More, .. http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/principle-equivalence.html


Christos A. Tsolkas.




The Solution....

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga.jpg

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga2.jpg


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Originally Posted By: ABCD
Originally Posted By: ABCD
SPHERICAL SHELL PROBLEM


PROBLEM

In Fig. 1, http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tsolk.prob.jpg .a spherical shell of radius R and mass m1 is given
A point mass m2 lies at the center of the spherical shell m1 (m1<m2).
We, now, let them perform a free fall from a heigt h inside the gravitatonal field of a mass M.

Question:
With respect to an inertial frame of reference S, during the free fall of the masses m1 and m2, inside the gravitational field of the mass M, will the point mass m2 remain at the center of the spherical shell m1 or will it move away from the center?

Note: I claim that, during the free fall of the two masses m1 and m2 inside the gravitational field of the mass M, the point mass m2 will move away from the centre of the spherical shell m1.

Consequently:
1) Galileo ( Experiment of the tower of Pisa ) is wrong,and
2) The Equivalence Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is a mistaken principle of Physics.



More, .. http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/principle-equivalence.html


Christos A. Tsolkas.




The Solution....

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga.jpg

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga2.jpg


Christos A. Tsolkas




http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga3.jpg

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5