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 (), 118 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#27014 07/08/08 08:58 AM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
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

.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
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

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
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

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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.

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

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

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Physics and Mathematics.

The "New Mathematics"!


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



tsolkas

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
There are several experimental results that confirm relativity, including muon decay, Kaviola's double-photon experiment, and the USNO's flying clock experiment.





Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
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.


Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
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
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
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
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
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
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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..)

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
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.

Last 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
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
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?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"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.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Zephir;

Fallible is correct. If you tried everything suggested as a cure for an unknown disease because it hadn't been proven snake-oil, you'd be trying millions of concoctions. With a few mouse-clicks, you can uncover a nearly infinate number of quacks and potions. I, nor anyone else, has the time or money to prove or disprove them all. Fortumately, most of the quackers are pitifully obvious.

I'm not arguing with you in reference to Tsolkas because I have proof that he's a quack. A lifetime of proving and disproving would never make even a dent in the number of quacks out there. I'm arguing with you because it's pitifully obvious that he is a quack.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
1
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
1
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
OPEN LETTER

January 21, 2009



TO: University Physics Professors

Dear Sirs,

As of today, (January 21, 2009), please stop teaching the Theory of Relativity!
The Theory of Relativity is finished for good!!!

The Theory of Relativity is FALSE because:
“Without performing any Physics experiment at all (in the laboratory or in space) and only by the “notional experiment” (See Experiment 14 on www.tsolkas.gr) it is clearly demonstrated that the Theory of Relativity is an utterly ERRONEOUS theory of Physics!!!
Excuse my bluntness, but please stop fooling yourselves. This is a disgrace to Science!
I am certain that physicists in the future will laugh at your failure to comprehend this simple experiment (Experiment 14)!!!
Frankly, --and with all due respect--, I cannot help wondering how it is possible for university professors to fail to understand such an uncomplicated experiment as Experiment 14?
Continuing teaching the Theory of Relativity at universities signifies that you are only deluding yourselves and perpetuating a LIE in Physics!!!
Personally, I am astonished by your failure to comprehend simple things like, for instance, Experiment 14. This is all I had to say, and nothing more…


Yours sincerely,



Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
1234,
I tried to click on your link in the above post and got a not found error. Do you have another link to the material?


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

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Amaranth Rose II

Try: www.tsolkas.gr

But this is "Experiment 14": http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experiment-14.html


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Thanks, redewenur. I now see what you are talking about.


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

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I thought this thread was moved to NQS.


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
In fact, every quantum mechanics phenomena indicates clearly, special relativity is utterly wrong (the cosmologic constant estimation is classical example). And vice versa.

Every pair of different theories must be based on different postulate set. Different postulates means, they cannot be derived each other, because they're not consistent mutually. This is because, if they could be derived, we could replace both theories by the single one.

And the result, all theories based on different postulate sets are inconsistent mutually, thus disproving each other.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-theories-and-gdels-incompleteness.html

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
1
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
1
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4

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

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Tsolkas - VIDEO



video-01

video-02


at www.tsolkas.gr

Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
This guy is talking Greek! Give me a break! It is of no use to me to link to a Greek-speaking lecturer, as I do not speak Greek. Can you find a link in English?


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

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 9
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 9
Yet to assimilate the perspectives of this Tsolkas. Will proceed with an assessment and critical appreciation of his views. But for now....The Michaelson-Morely interferometer experiment seems a victim of media and power-political interpretation. The Result from the one day of data provided by this test, while promoted as conclusive disproof of an Aetheric reference frame, in fact suggested it was there but not able to be conclusively distinguished from potential errors in the test equipment.
Dayton miller's work with 1000+x the equipment sensitivity and over 10000x the sample size and analysis of physical locational and stellargeometrical influence is worthy of our awareness. The results, co-varified by later and far deeper work than the mass-publicised initial experiment of michaelson and morely are an apparently ignored proof of the superfluid medium of spacetime. The denial of this seemingly has caused big divergence from reality in our mathmatical models of the nature of the universe.


Good look at this:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Einsteins opinions(poor sod seemed to be adopted as a reluctant spin doctor mascot after 1922 when they buried his new unified field theorem of gravity/EM/nuclear forces 3 weeks after publication under national security laws) :
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)


Last edited by AyeZeuss; 05/31/09 01:18 AM. Reason: clarity
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: AyeZeuss
as conclusive disproof of an Aetheric reference frame, in fact suggested it
Aether Wave Theory brings the best understanding of Aether concept so far and from it follows, negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment is a direct consequence of Aether model, instead. Such stance can be expressed in single theorem:

No (motion of) environment can be observed by its own waves.

For example, from perspective of water waves water surface would always appear like empty void space without motion JUST BECAUSE it is serving for surface wave spreading like local space-time.

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

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
1
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
1
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
FIRST NEWTON, and NOW EINSTEIN?
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3848
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-126189.html
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Was+Einstein+wrong%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
===============================
Because I was interested in and did well in basic maths and physics in high school and first year university, I checked this thread and have given it a quick read. I will do it more justice later.

Meanwhile I ask: Are the participants here all qualified in maths and physics? Or are some cranks?

Or did I sleep walk into a seance where through a medium a group of theologians are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?--a favourite topic in forums in the Middle Ages? laugh

BTW, as a theologian, I think I like what is going on in the "new" maths and physics. Now if only I had the brains and imagination to understand what it is all about.

And what it will do for us in the here and now? Or in the hereafter, if there is one?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Physics, from Galileo until today (Galileo, Classical Physics, the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc) is on the “wrong path”, and the Laws of Physics as we know them do not express the reality of nature.

Thus, contemporary Physics needs to be reviewed as a whole (from Galileo until today), and rebuilt upon “new foundations”, in accordance with the axiomatic foundation and the laws of E.G.T.

MY PROPHECY…

I am certain that the Physicists of the future will laugh (!!!) at todayʼs great Physicists, who either cannot or do not want to understand simple things, such as experiments (1), (18) and (19) out of a total of nineteen (19) plus experiments listed on www.tsolkas.gr.
Because the above three experiments prove, in a very simple way, that the Theory of Relativity is a totally false Theory of Physics.
Thus, the Theory of Relativity (as the greatest scientific fallacy in the history of Physics) must be rejected “here and now”, and cease to be taught in Universities, etc for the simple fact that it is a wholly false Theory of Physics.
Subsequently, if the Theory of Relativity does not cease to be taught in Universities, etc, then we will be justified in describing the current state of contemporary Physics as comi-tragic!!!
That is my humble prophecy… and time will tell whether Iʼm right or wrong.



see,

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



Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
THE EXPERIMENT OF PARALLEL CONDUCTORS

ABSTRACT



The purpose of the experiment of the parallel conductors is to prove in a very simple way that the Theory of Relativity is utterly false.
In essence, this experiment rests on the same rationale as experiments (19), (18) and (16) described on www.tsolkas.gr.
The experiment of the parallel conductors is a very important, simple and low-cost experiment that can be easily performed by university students.



http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/experiment-20.html


Christos Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
RELATIVITY THEORY IS WRONG!!!!

“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?


Christos A. Tsolkas
www.tsolkas.gr

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/experimental_verification.html


Christos A. Tsolkas
wwww.tsolkas.gr

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

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
RELATIVITY
By
Albert Einstein

Here, Einstein is WRONG!!!!!!!

http://www.tsolkas.gr/forums/tga4.jpg


C.A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Guess what Mr. Tsolkas. I'm back!

This scan from a book is simply an observation of the equivalence principle, I realised that when I was a teenager. what's the big deal? How does that make Einstein wrong???

Wait, don't answer. Your experiment 14 (gyroscope) is still listed on your site, even after I refuted it. You should remove that page before despertely clutching to every straw you can find. Leaving it there, knowing its conclusion is wrong, is dishonest and shows you have no interest in understanding nature or relativity.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
An interesting problem!


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


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Spherical Shell Problem
(The Principle of Equivalence of GR is wrong!!!)


http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/spherical-shell-problem.html



Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
THE “TOWER OF PISA” EXPERIMENT
ON AN ASTEROID


Let us assume that the Tower of Pisa was built on an asteroid with a diameter, e.g. of D = 50 m and that Galileo released from the top of that tower e.g. a cotton wool sphere with a diameter of d1=10 cm and a sphere with a diameter of d2=10 cm, which consists of the material of a neutron star.
In this case, will the two spheres each the surface of the asteroid at the same time, as with the Tower of Pisa experiment that Galileo performed on Earth?

The answer to that question is negative.
In the case of the “asteroid experiment” , according to relation (72), i.e.:

(m1/m2) < (&#965;2/&#965;1) <1 (74)



the sphere made of cotton wool will be the first to reach the surface of the asteroid, followed by the sphere that consists of the material of a neutron star.
In the “asteroid experiment” described above, Galileo&#700;s fallacy and Einstein&#700;s mistake (regarding the “remarkable” property of gravitational fields), as cited in the beginning (in the project summary) and as we will demonstrate next, are completely clear.
Unfortunately, Galileo&#700;s fallacy and Einstein&#700;s mistake led contemporary Physics down the wrong path.

see,
http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/spherical-shell-problem.html

CONCLUSION
Galileo is wrong and the principle of equivalence of GR is WRONG!!!




Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Hello Christos

I see your gyroscope experiment (14) is still shown on your website even though I refuted it.

Why should anyone bother working through this spherical shell problem knowing that you'll ignore any disproof?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Five Questions:

Question 1: Why isn&#700;t a simple experiment like the Cedarholm – Townes experiment (1959) carried out on a moving vehicle (e.g. train, aircraft, satellite, etc), so that it can be established once and for all whether ether exists in nature?
What is, therefore, the reason for not performing the Cedarholm – Townes experiment on a moving vehicle?

Question 2: Why isn&#700;t experiment 21 (See www.tsolkas.gr) reperfomed, since it is a very simple and low-cost experiment which proves that the Special Theory of Relativity is completely false?
What is, therefore, the reason for not performing experiment 21?

Question 3: Why has experiment - 14 been kept quiet (See www.tsolkas.gr), since it demonstrates theoretically (in a very simple manner and without any cost) that the “principle of equivalence” of the General Theory of Relativity is an utterly erroneous principle of physics?
What is, therefore, the reason for keeping quiet about this very important experiment?

Question 4: Why is the real cause of the advance of Mercury&#700;s perihelion (43&#900;&#900;per century), i.e. the Sun&#700;s revolution around the centre of mass of the Solar system, being kept quiet?
Because this advance (of the planets&#700; perihelia) is not attributed to the curvature of time-space around the Sun as Einstein wrongly maintains (See &#963;&#964;&#959; www.tsolkas.gr).
Why is this very significant point (purposely) suppressed?

Question 5: Why is the spherical shell problem (discussed above) being kept quiet, since it proves in a very simple manner that : 1) the “principle of equivalence” of the General Theory of Relativity is a completely false principle of Physics, and 2) gravitational fields do not have the “remarkable” property of imparting the same acceleration to all bodies (irrespective of the latter&#700;s mass), as Einstein erroneously claims?
What is, therefore, the reason for keeping quiet about the spherical shell problem?

What answers have physics professors given to Questions (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)?
Is there some “expediency” for not providing an answer to the above five questions? After everything discussed in this paper (and on www.tsolkas.gr in general), we come to the following important conclusion:

Conclusion

Modern physics should be rid once and for all of the “pseudo-science” of the Theory of Relativity.
This theory should no longer be taught in universities for the simple reason that it is false and does not reflect natural reality.
If however, the “pseudo-science” of the Theory of Relativity continues to be taught in universities, this will be the biggest shame in the history of Physics.

Lastly, I have a more general question to pose. In closing up.

QUESTION

Could it be that physics is currently controlled and directed by various “Centers” (universities, professors, journals, etc) towards an anti-scientific path that is taking us to a new Middle Ages?

I am posing this question because this inexplicable (and perhaps intentional) silence and non performance of the above-mentioned experiments probably lend truth to it.

I HAVE A QUESTION...

As is well-known, tremendous amounts of money have been spent on the Gravity Probe b experiment, and eventually this experiment failed!
This compels me to ask all these Physics “Centers” the following question:
Why not spend just a small amount of money to carry out two simple experiments, namely:

The Cedarholm – Townes (1959) experiment on a moving vehicle (e.g. train, aircraft, satellite, etc), and
Experiment – 21 (See www.tsolkas.gr), in order to establish once and for all the accuracy or fallacy of the Theory of Relativity.
I repeat, why don&#700;t these Physics “Centers” explain to us the reason for not conducting these two experiments?
Is there some “expediency” behind this, --so that the foundations of contemporary physics won&#700;t utterly shaken?

I believe this is a very rational question.
This is where my paper ends. Time will tell whether I am right or not.


Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
TECHNOLOGY

Fusion: The "ZEUS" Machine

http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/machine-zeus.html


Christos A.Tsolkas

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Just to try one more time to inject a little reason into this extremely long thread.

Einstein may be wrong, but it isn't apparent. Ever since Einstein created his theories scientists have been testing them. For over a hundred years for Special Relativity (SR) and for almost a hundred years for General Relativity (GR) people have been testing them. And they always work. Over and over predictions of SR and GR have been tested and the results have always matched the theoretical predictions. The chance that Einstein was wrong gets more remote with every test, and by this time it is extremely remote.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ABCD

Question 3: Why has experiment - 14 been kept quiet (See www.tsolkas.gr), since it demonstrates theoretically (in a very simple manner and without any cost) that the “principle of equivalence” of the General Theory of Relativity is an utterly erroneous principle of physics?


It hasn't been kept quiet. I mention it every single time you post on here! I already refuted it. Continuing to promote it shows your scientific dishonesty.

If I remember correctly, this thought experiment shows that circular motion is not equivalent to uniform gravity. Nothing interesting there. Everybody already knew that.



Quote:

The Cedarholm – Townes (1959) experiment on a moving vehicle (e.g. train, aircraft, satellite, etc), and
Experiment – 21 (See www.tsolkas.gr), in order to establish once and for all the accuracy or fallacy of the Theory of Relativity.
I repeat, why don&#700;t these Physics “Centers” explain to us the reason for not conducting these two experiments?


Here you are contradicting your own claim:

"The «gyroscope experiment» described above provides theoretical proof, ... that ... the Theory of Relativity is a completely false theory of Physics."

You say you've proved relativity to be false, so of course no experiment can show that it's accurate, according to yourself.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ABCD

Question 3: Why has experiment - 14 been kept quiet (See www.tsolkas.gr), since it demonstrates theoretically (in a very simple manner and without any cost) that the “principle of equivalence” of the General Theory of Relativity is an utterly erroneous principle of physics?


It hasn't been kept quiet. I mention it every single time you post on here! I already refuted it. Continuing to promote it shows your scientific dishonesty.

If I remember correctly, this thought experiment shows that circular motion is not equivalent to uniform gravity. Nothing interesting there. Everybody already knew that.



Quote:

The Cedarholm – Townes (1959) experiment on a moving vehicle (e.g. train, aircraft, satellite, etc), and
Experiment – 21 (See www.tsolkas.gr), in order to establish once and for all the accuracy or fallacy of the Theory of Relativity.
I repeat, why don&#700;t these Physics “Centers” explain to us the reason for not conducting these two experiments?


Here you are contradicting your own claim:

"The «gyroscope experiment» described above provides theoretical proof, ... that ... the Theory of Relativity is a completely false theory of Physics."

You say you've proved relativity to be false, so of course no experiment can show that it's accurate, according to yourself.


Kalog, I repeat you are wrong...1oo%!!!!

tsolkas

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ABCD
Kalog, I repeat you are wrong...1oo%!!!!


You should welcome specific, detailed criticism like I provided. Few scientists can make progress in a bubble. You need people to bounce things off. Critical responses (right or wrong) are far more useful than blind agreement or smiles and nods.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
ABSTRACT

The XT inventions (124 in total) were published online and on www.tsolkas.gr on the 1st of March 2008.
The XT inventions are internationally protected by Intellectual Property Law and their use, in part or in full, by third parties is prohibited without the author’s written consent. Any violation is punishable by law.
In addition, in the event that any natural person, Industry, University, State, etc, is interested in making use, in part or in full, of one or more of the XT inventions, they may (upon written agreement with the author) be granted the intellectual property rights for their use of the inventions in question.
Finally, I hope the XT inventions will be used to maintain peace, improve our quality of life, and protect the environment.

Christos A. Tsolkas
April 12th, 2011


The XT Inventions(Greek Version)

http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/efeyreseis-xt.html

Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
The advance of Mercury’s perihelion

The “inexplicable” advance of Mercury’s perihelion (43&#900;&#900;/century) is not attributed to the curvature of time-space around the Sun, as Einstein erroneously asserts.
The real cause for this phenomenon is the Sun’s revolution around the center of mass of our solar system.

Unfortunately, neither Le Verrier nor any other physicist to this day have taken this fact (i.e. the revolution of the Sun around the center of mass of our solar system) into account.
Thus, this the great error of Le Verrier and of all other physicists, Einstein included.


For more information, see the link “Proof for the advance of Mercury’s perihelion”, and video 02 (in Greek).See, www.tsolkas.gr


REMARK

WHY DON’T RELATIVISTS ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION?

QUESTION

1. Since the revolution of the Sun around the center of mass of the solar system is an unquestionable fact, and
2. Relativists maintain that the General Theory of Relativity is accurate,

THEN:

Why don’t relativits tell us the value of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion which is due to the revolution of the Sun around the center of mass of our solar system?
Why are they unwilling to make these calculations known to us?


ANSWER

If relativists perform these calculations, they will instantly see that the General Theory of Relativity is a totally false theory of physics!!!

More specifically, can these calculations be performed and presented to us by those who carried out the Gravity Probe b experiment and are advocates of the General Theory of Relativity?
We are awaiting their reply…

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: ABCD
THE “TOWER OF PISA” EXPERIMENT
ON AN ASTEROID


Let us assume that the Tower of Pisa was built on an asteroid with a diameter, e.g. of D = 50 m and that Galileo released from the top of that tower e.g. a cotton wool sphere with a diameter of d1=10 cm and a sphere with a diameter of d2=10 cm, which consists of the material of a neutron star.
In this case, will the two spheres each the surface of the asteroid at the same time, as with the Tower of Pisa experiment that Galileo performed on Earth?

The answer to that question is negative.
In the case of the “asteroid experiment” , according to relation (72), i.e.:

(m1/m2) < (&#965;2/&#965;1) <1 (74)



the sphere made of cotton wool will be the first to reach the surface of the asteroid, followed by the sphere that consists of the material of a neutron star.

Christos A. Tsolkas




I am glad you revived this whole thread just so I could read this ... I had tears in my eyes rolling around laughing at this.

Is your physics really that bad that you actually think this makes sense and you expect us to buy your story.

Here is the problem for you to get your mind around the nuetron star in this position is in Earths gravity frame you can't devoid that or explain it away it simply is. Thus your calculation is WRONG.

Even under Newtonian if you had a nuetron star and tried to do the calculation it requires you to therefore calculate the centre of mass of all the objects which will be some point inside the earth. Now thats the point all the masses are heading for redo the calc accelerations and time and solve the equations with that point and by magic the two objects will hit the surface together MR genius.

GR encapsulates Newtonian physics as a superset but you don't even need it to solve that problem you can solve and show Tsolkas error even under Newtonian physics.

Under special realtivity there is a very very miniscule difference technically the nuetron star will hit first by infinitesimal amount because of SR timeshift based on acceleration. The nuetron star has massive acceleration compared to the light object it has to so as to get get such a heavy mass to the centre of mass at the same time.

Take you pick of the answer they are all roughly the same as distinct from your answer which is so wrong as to be hillarious.

Edit: There is some really cool things you can do with three body newtonian have a look at this site (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html)
I really really like this one (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html) which is near enough to our posters situation :-)

Last edited by Orac; 08/08/11 08:13 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
A
ABCD Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 33
1) Orac , you are WRONG again!!!!!!!!!!!!

*********************************************************

2)A very interesting article.......!!!!!See:


http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/conlusions-electrogravity.html



Christos A. Tsolkas

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Put the calculation down and I will correct your mistakes for you.

Sorry just saying I am wrong won't cut it I can prove I am right mathematically and experimentally.

All you can do is squeal I am wrong!

Edit: LMAO I just read your website ... best laugh I have had for a while. So basically no scientist observed stuff correctly and even though almost every school kid does half these experiments there eyes are lying and they should believe you :-)

Edit: Can I ask why you believe in electrons and protons, hell we have lied to you about everything else .... Classic stuff.

Edit: Sorry I am used to school kids trying to solve the nuetron star and small ball bearing as a two body problem not a three body and the error it leads in to. I was not considering you were dillussional to which I will never be able to proove.

Last edited by Orac; 08/08/11 09:33 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 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