GPB first result is given out:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html
However, be not discouraged, anti-relativists!
Einstein, Hilbert, Hawking, and all other idiot relativists do not understand Euclidean space: Only in Euclidean space is there one coordinate system, r, \phi which have the direct meaning of distance and angle respectively. However, the relativists are idiots who alway write papers and books on general relativity tests which write coordinates on curved spacetime as t, r, \phi and say they are time, distance, angle respectively. People with a little knowledge on curves know that the arch-length on curved space has to be calculated by integration with metric form. Coordinates have no direct meaning of time, distance, angle if one talks about curved spacetime!!!
GR calculation on GPB has almost zero error of its prediction. Relativists will start the horrible attack at anti-relativists!!!
Some time later (1 or 5 yrs), some ones from anti-relativist authority recall, finally in their despair, Jin He's papers astro-ph/0512614, and realize that curved spacetime is falsified by GPB data with zero error:
``In fact, all claimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR (flat spacetime general relativity), because people when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, people calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate phi. However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fit data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. ''
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:04 PM)
the verification of FGR (flat spacetime general relativity)
However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system
the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption
So, have they actually detected space-time, or are they just theorising about theories?
However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system
the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption
So, have they actually detected space-time, or are they just theorising about theories?
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:04 PM)
GPB first result is given out:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html
However, be not discouraged, anti-relativists!
Einstein, Hilbert, Hawking, and all other idiot relativists do not understand Euclidean space: Only in Euclidean space is there one coordinate system, r, \phi which have the direct meaning of distance and angle respectively. However, the relativists are idiots who alway write papers and books on general relativity tests which write coordinates on curved spacetime as t, r, \phi and say they are time, distance, angle respectively. People with a little knowledge on curves know that the arch-length on curved space has to be calculated by integration with metric form. Coordinates have no direct meaning of time, distance, angle if one talks about curved spacetime!!!
GR calculation on GPB has almost zero error of its prediction. Relativists will start the horrible attack at anti-relativists!!!
Some time later (1 or 5 yrs), some ones from anti-relativist authority recall, finally in their despair, Jin He's papers astro-ph/0512614, and realize that curved spacetime is falsified by GPB data with zero error:
``In fact, all claimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR (flat spacetime general relativity), because people when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, people calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate phi. However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fit data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. ''
So , what is your beef?
A. The fact that GR is being confirmed experimentally?
B. The fact that your boneheaded ideas are disproven?
C. The fact that no one is publishing your errors?
D. The fact that you can't get a job because you got physics all wrong?
E. All of the above?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html
However, be not discouraged, anti-relativists!
Einstein, Hilbert, Hawking, and all other idiot relativists do not understand Euclidean space: Only in Euclidean space is there one coordinate system, r, \phi which have the direct meaning of distance and angle respectively. However, the relativists are idiots who alway write papers and books on general relativity tests which write coordinates on curved spacetime as t, r, \phi and say they are time, distance, angle respectively. People with a little knowledge on curves know that the arch-length on curved space has to be calculated by integration with metric form. Coordinates have no direct meaning of time, distance, angle if one talks about curved spacetime!!!
GR calculation on GPB has almost zero error of its prediction. Relativists will start the horrible attack at anti-relativists!!!
Some time later (1 or 5 yrs), some ones from anti-relativist authority recall, finally in their despair, Jin He's papers astro-ph/0512614, and realize that curved spacetime is falsified by GPB data with zero error:
``In fact, all claimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR (flat spacetime general relativity), because people when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, people calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate phi. However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fit data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. ''
So , what is your beef?
A. The fact that GR is being confirmed experimentally?
B. The fact that your boneheaded ideas are disproven?
C. The fact that no one is publishing your errors?
D. The fact that you can't get a job because you got physics all wrong?
E. All of the above?
Only Jesus Christ can detect spacetime manifold. Any human, eg., Einstein, Hawking, John Baez, Steve Carlip can detect spacetime by measuring distance or time interval with physical processes (light waves, etc.).
QUOTE (manco+Apr 14 2007, 05:17 PM)
So , what is your beef?
A. The fact that GR is being confirmed experimentally?
B. The fact that your boneheaded ideas are disproven?
C. The fact that no one is publishing your errors?
D. The fact that you can't get a job because you got physics all wrong?
E. All of the above?
Manco:
Are you serious? If yes, try to understand astro-ph/0512614.
Authority denies my paper because they do not want to lose grants which provide their support for over 80 yrs. Are the membor of the authority?
A. The fact that GR is being confirmed experimentally?
B. The fact that your boneheaded ideas are disproven?
C. The fact that no one is publishing your errors?
D. The fact that you can't get a job because you got physics all wrong?
E. All of the above?
Manco:
Are you serious? If yes, try to understand astro-ph/0512614.
Authority denies my paper because they do not want to lose grants which provide their support for over 80 yrs. Are the membor of the authority?
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:20 PM)
Only Jesus Christ can detect spacetime
Ok, I'm going to stop reading this thread now.
kthxbye
Ok, I'm going to stop reading this thread now.
kthxbye
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:25 PM)
Manco:
Are you serious? If yes, try to understand astro-ph/0512614.
Authority denies my paper because they do not want to lose grants which provide their support for over 80 yrs. Are the membor of the authority?
The referees reject your paper because it is garbage. It is amazing that you even got someone to endorse you for uploading on the arxiv.
Are you serious? If yes, try to understand astro-ph/0512614.
Authority denies my paper because they do not want to lose grants which provide their support for over 80 yrs. Are the membor of the authority?
The referees reject your paper because it is garbage. It is amazing that you even got someone to endorse you for uploading on the arxiv.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:20 PM)
Only Jesus Christ can detect spacetime manifold. Any human, eg., Einstein, Hawking, John Baez, Steve Carlip can detect spacetime by measuring distance or time interval with physical processes (light waves, etc.).
F. You may be having some serious problems?
G. You may have forgotten the long list of errors? See here as a reminder.
F. You may be having some serious problems?
G. You may have forgotten the long list of errors? See here as a reminder.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
Only in Euclidean space is there one coordinate system, r, \phi which have the direct meaning of distance and angle respectively. However, the relativists are idiots who alway write papers and books on general relativity tests which write coordinates on curved spacetime as t, r, \phi and say they are time, distance, angle respectively.
Except that I gave you numerous references and quotes from extremely well known relativity textbooks such as Wald and Schutz which proved that incorrect.
As it happens I've been reading a large section of Wald recently and he constantly says "Where [quantity] asymptotes to [normal physical quantity] at spacial infinity"
Things like "Where the killing vector xi asymptotes to d/d(phi)".
It would seem that it's your misunderstanding of what relativity researchers and authors are saying which is the underlying problem and it's your refusal to be open minded which is the reason you continue to LIE.
Except that I gave you numerous references and quotes from extremely well known relativity textbooks such as Wald and Schutz which proved that incorrect.
As it happens I've been reading a large section of Wald recently and he constantly says "Where [quantity] asymptotes to [normal physical quantity] at spacial infinity"
Things like "Where the killing vector xi asymptotes to d/d(phi)".
It would seem that it's your misunderstanding of what relativity researchers and authors are saying which is the underlying problem and it's your refusal to be open minded which is the reason you continue to LIE.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
People with a little knowledge on curves know that the arch-length on curved space has to be calculated by integration with metric form. Coordinates have no direct meaning of time, distance, angle if one talks about curved spacetime!!!
Such is the nature of a manifold based theory, you're not bound to a single universal coordinate system. But if you know how the coordinates vary as a point moves through a manifold you are able to relate them to the physical quantities you and I consider "length" and "angle" and "time" which we experience on the surface of Earth.
After all, things like the GPS system which are not explained by any other theory but GR demonstrate that people well versed in mainstream relativity have exceptional skill at converting the variables in their theories into viable physical quantities.
After all, things like the GPS system which are not explained by any other theory but GR demonstrate that people well versed in mainstream relativity have exceptional skill at converting the variables in their theories into viable physical quantities.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
Some time later (1 or 5 yrs), some ones from anti-relativist authority recall, finally in their despair, Jin He's papers astro-ph/0512614, and realize that curved spacetime is falsified by GPB data with zero error:
And by Jin He, you mean you. The fact you have to pretend you're promoting someone else's paper hardly does you any favours. If your work was of merit, it would speak for itself. But rather than consider for a moment you might be wrong, you blame a conspiracy.
But then you're the guy who thinks the Schwarzchild metric isn't a solution of the Einstein Field Equations.
OK, I mean that ONLY JESUS CHRIST can direct see spacetime manifold as a marble like. As human, you can assume spacetime is curved but you can not see it!! However, you can indirectly test it. However, you have to follow the basic MATHEMATICS of curved spacetime. That is my point!!!!!!. I give my point very clearly. Why you fail to see it. Are you delibrately?
Rpenner = Lee Smolin?
I dont understand your concern. May be we can discuss in private (my experience is that when too many people enter in a debate, this generates too much confusion). I dont understand why in curved space-time one cannot consider coordinates differences as space, time intervals...please clarify this to me? At least for the time coordinate, please...
regards,
You know flat space is nothing but:
ds^2=dx^2+dy^2
flat Minkowski spacetime is nothing but:
ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2
where
ds=dx if dt=dy=dz=0
and
dT=cdt =time if dx=dy=dz=0 where dT^2=-ds^2
curved spacetime is nothing but:
ds^2=-Ac^2dt^2+Bdx^2+Cdy^2+Ddz^2
where
ds=sqrt(B)dx if dt=dy=dz=0
and
dT=sqrt(A)dt = time if dx=dy=dz=0 where dT^2=-ds^2
Therefore, t is not time because A varies with the position on curved spacetime manifold.
But then you're the guy who thinks the Schwarzchild metric isn't a solution of the Einstein Field Equations.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
Authority denies my paper because they do not want to lose grants which provide their support for over 80 yrs.
And you fail to realise grants go UP when a paradigm is overthrown. Even if you think researchers are in it for the money (yeah, we all went into theoretical physics because it's where the money is Try looking at the average salary of researchers!), it'd still be in their interest to find a flaw in relativity.
But no, you have to twist everything around because you can't allow for the possibility you might be wrong, no matter how obvious your lies are.
Try looking at the average salary of researchers!), it'd still be in their interest to find a flaw in relativity. But no, you have to twist everything around because you can't allow for the possibility you might be wrong, no matter how obvious your lies are.
QUOTE
Bryn Richards Posted on Today at 5:29 PM
Ok, I'm going to stop reading this thread now.
kthxbye
Ok, I'm going to stop reading this thread now.
kthxbye
OK, I mean that ONLY JESUS CHRIST can direct see spacetime manifold as a marble like. As human, you can assume spacetime is curved but you can not see it!! However, you can indirectly test it. However, you have to follow the basic MATHEMATICS of curved spacetime. That is my point!!!!!!. I give my point very clearly. Why you fail to see it. Are you delibrately?
They worst stuff in the world is that there are garbage human as you!!!
Yes, there are garbage human!!!
Yes, there are garbage human!!!
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 05:37 PM)
OK, I mean that ONLY JESUS CHRIST can direct see spacetime manifold as a marble like.
This is much better.
This is much better.
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 14 2007, 06:40 PM)
They worst stuff in the world is that there are garbage human as you!!!
Yes, there are garbage human!!!
My, what an excellent retort. Normally I'd try to come up with something to show your lack of logic and evidence but I think you just did it for me.
Yes, there are garbage human!!!
My, what an excellent retort. Normally I'd try to come up with something to show your lack of logic and evidence but I think you just did it for me.
truth2k: Maybe you're being a bit too black and white here. I and others might challenge some aspects of the current interpretation of Relativity, but that doesn't make us all anti-relativists.
Here's a quotation from your link that I've deliberately corrupted to show you what I mean:
"It’s fascinating to be able to see the altered permittivity directly in the tilting of these GP-B gyroscopes — more than a million times better than the best inertial navigation gyroscopes"... The satellite was designed as a pristine, space-borne laboratory, whose sole task was to use four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure directly two effects predicted by general relativity. One is the geodetic effect - the amount by which the mass of the Earth alters the permittivity of the local space in which it resides. The other effect, called frame-dragging, is the amount by which the rotating Earth drags this locally-altered space around with it. According to Einstein’s theory, over the course of a year, the alteration of Earth's local space causes the spin axes of each gyroscope to shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule angle of 6.606 arc-seconds in the plane of the spacecraft’s orbit...
All: the above is not a quote, I've deliberately changed "warped space time" to "altered permittivity".
Here's a quotation from your link that I've deliberately corrupted to show you what I mean:
"It’s fascinating to be able to see the altered permittivity directly in the tilting of these GP-B gyroscopes — more than a million times better than the best inertial navigation gyroscopes"... The satellite was designed as a pristine, space-borne laboratory, whose sole task was to use four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure directly two effects predicted by general relativity. One is the geodetic effect - the amount by which the mass of the Earth alters the permittivity of the local space in which it resides. The other effect, called frame-dragging, is the amount by which the rotating Earth drags this locally-altered space around with it. According to Einstein’s theory, over the course of a year, the alteration of Earth's local space causes the spin axes of each gyroscope to shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule angle of 6.606 arc-seconds in the plane of the spacecraft’s orbit...
All: the above is not a quote, I've deliberately changed "warped space time" to "altered permittivity".
Jin He is one of those, in the words of Luboš Motl, "breathtakingly ignorant, degenerated, bigotic, and obnoxious pseudointellectuals" and a double-poster.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14165
Most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.
Gravity Probe B was largely mooted when frame dragging was confirmed by another experiment. So instead of getting there first, all Gravity Probe B can hope for is a refinement. They needed to be very careful. If they are going to disagree with GR, it will only be by a small amount, so they need to be very accurate when reporting their sources of error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14165
Most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.
Gravity Probe B was largely mooted when frame dragging was confirmed by another experiment. So instead of getting there first, all Gravity Probe B can hope for is a refinement. They needed to be very careful. If they are going to disagree with GR, it will only be by a small amount, so they need to be very accurate when reporting their sources of error.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 15 2007, 01:59 AM)
Jin He is one of those, in the words of Luboš Motl, "breathtakingly ignorant, degenerated, bigotic, and obnoxious pseudointellectuals" and a double-poster.
Smolin is a mediocre, slow thinker with a bad memory, below-average imagination, bad ability to focus and investigate details, and with kindergarten ideas - it is always hard to tell whether he is just joking when he talks about his childish ideas or whether he is serious - who is unable to learn the state-of-the-art physics at the technical level and who has never written a paper that would remain both valid as well as important among physicists who know their field for more than 10 minutes
Smolin is a mediocre, slow thinker with a bad memory, below-average imagination, bad ability to focus and investigate details, and with kindergarten ideas - it is always hard to tell whether he is just joking when he talks about his childish ideas or whether he is serious - who is unable to learn the state-of-the-art physics at the technical level and who has never written a paper that would remain both valid as well as important among physicists who know their field for more than 10 minutes
QUOTE
Zephir Posted on Today at 7:46 AM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Apr 15 2007, 01:59 AM)
Jin He is one of those, in the words of Luboš Motl, "breathtakingly ignorant, degenerated, bigotic, and obnoxious pseudointellectuals" and a double-poster.
Smolin is a mediocre, slow thinker with a bad memory, below-average imagination, bad ability to focus and investigate details, and with kindergarten ideas - it is always hard to tell whether he is just joking when he talks about his childish ideas or whether he is serious - who is unable to learn the state-of-the-art physics at the technical level and who has never written a paper that would remain both valid as well as important among physicists who know their field for more than 10 minutes
QUOTE (rpenner @ Apr 15 2007, 01:59 AM)
Jin He is one of those, in the words of Luboš Motl, "breathtakingly ignorant, degenerated, bigotic, and obnoxious pseudointellectuals" and a double-poster.
Smolin is a mediocre, slow thinker with a bad memory, below-average imagination, bad ability to focus and investigate details, and with kindergarten ideas - it is always hard to tell whether he is just joking when he talks about his childish ideas or whether he is serious - who is unable to learn the state-of-the-art physics at the technical level and who has never written a paper that would remain both valid as well as important among physicists who know their field for more than 10 minutes
Rpenner = Lee Smolin?
That Lubos Motl sounds rather nasty judging from that blog. It's full of bile rather than logic.
Well, I'm not discouraged by the GPB results but I must admit is a new other stone in the development of a right Physics.
Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY WRONG in spite of the experiments it could agree.
I have found a different physical phenomenon to be the real cause of the results in many experiments rather than the relativistic predictions.
You can see all these at: A New Light In Physics
Ex:
Strong Magnet
Kaufmann
Fizeau
Transversal Doppler effect
Mercury precession
(just to cite some)
Now is the time to the Gravity Probe B results... I think that a proper not relativistic interpretation of them will come at its time.
Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY WRONG in spite of the experiments it could agree.
I have found a different physical phenomenon to be the real cause of the results in many experiments rather than the relativistic predictions.
You can see all these at: A New Light In Physics
Ex:
Strong Magnet
Kaufmann
Fizeau
Transversal Doppler effect
Mercury precession
(just to cite some)
Now is the time to the Gravity Probe B results... I think that a proper not relativistic interpretation of them will come at its time.
QUOTE (Guest_truth2k+Apr 15 2007, 06:20 PM)
Rpenner = Lee Smolin?
I doubt it, but I'm rather sure by personality of L. Motl...
I doubt it, but I'm rather sure by personality of L. Motl...
QUOTE (martillo+Apr 16 2007, 12:13 AM)
Well, I'm not discouraged by the GPB results but I must admit is a new other stone in the development of a right Physics.
Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY WRONG in spite of the experiments it could agree.
How is it wrong if it agrees with experiment? care to explain? Please open your own thread, do not hijack others.
While you are at it, I had a short look at your "Transverse Doppler Effect", it is simply a collection of errors, so it doesn't look like you have much credibility.
Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY WRONG in spite of the experiments it could agree.
How is it wrong if it agrees with experiment? care to explain? Please open your own thread, do not hijack others.
While you are at it, I had a short look at your "Transverse Doppler Effect", it is simply a collection of errors, so it doesn't look like you have much credibility.
QUOTE
manco Posted on Today at 12:19 AM How is it wrong if it agrees with experiment? care to explain?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| manco Posted on Today at 12:19 AM How is it wrong if it agrees with experiment? care to explain? |
I dont understand your concern. May be we can discuss in private (my experience is that when too many people enter in a debate, this generates too much confusion). I dont understand why in curved space-time one cannot consider coordinates differences as space, time intervals...please clarify this to me? At least for the time coordinate, please...
regards,
You know flat space is nothing but:
ds^2=dx^2+dy^2
flat Minkowski spacetime is nothing but:
ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2
where
ds=dx if dt=dy=dz=0
and
dT=cdt =time if dx=dy=dz=0 where dT^2=-ds^2
curved spacetime is nothing but:
ds^2=-Ac^2dt^2+Bdx^2+Cdy^2+Ddz^2
where
ds=sqrt(B)dx if dt=dy=dz=0
and
dT=sqrt(A)dt = time if dx=dy=dz=0 where dT^2=-ds^2
Therefore, t is not time because A varies with the position on curved spacetime manifold.
manco,
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
care to explain?
Yes.
Realizing your king of thinking and reasoning I'm not going to answer any of your posts.
You don't deserve that.
QUOTE
Please open your own thread, do not hijack others.
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please open your own thread, do not hijack others. |
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
care to explain?
Yes.
Realizing your king of thinking and reasoning I'm not going to answer any of your posts.
You don't deserve that.
QUOTE (martillo+Apr 16 2007, 12:36 AM)
manco,
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
Yes.
Realizing your king of thinking and reasoning I'm not going to answer any of your posts.
You don't deserve that.
That's ok.
Not only that your treatment of Transverse Doppler Effect is wrong but also the one on Michelson-Morley is wrong as well. You may want to rewrite them
Second time you answer this.
I don't know what "hijack" means but listen but guessing i can say I'm not doing that. The problem is that you don't like the posts and you decide to ask for non posting anymore! Who are you to tell others to not post in any thread?
If you don't like my posts refute them whith logic and good argumentations or just ignore them. That is what forums are for, to present and discuss different points of view. If you don't like that prime phylosophy it would be better for you to stay out of forums like this one.
So:
Yes.
Realizing your king of thinking and reasoning I'm not going to answer any of your posts.
You don't deserve that.
That's ok.
Not only that your treatment of Transverse Doppler Effect is wrong but also the one on Michelson-Morley is wrong as well. You may want to rewrite them
QUOTE (truth2k+Apr 16 2007, 01:29 AM)
Therefore, t is not time because A varies with the position on curved spacetime manifold.
It is locally where the coefficents of the metric can be picked to the same as the Minkowski metric (ie local or normal coordinates) and for all non-cosmological things (ie zero cosmological constant) the coordinate coefficents all tend to 1 at spacial infinity.
Besides, as has been explained to you many times, the people who develop the theories and predict physical experiments know how to compare quantities measured at different places in space-time. Infact, it's a major discussion point in any differential geometry book because it leads to notions of parallel transportation and metric connections.
But you obviously didn't bother reading those books, despite the claim you had.
It is locally where the coefficents of the metric can be picked to the same as the Minkowski metric (ie local or normal coordinates) and for all non-cosmological things (ie zero cosmological constant) the coordinate coefficents all tend to 1 at spacial infinity.
Besides, as has been explained to you many times, the people who develop the theories and predict physical experiments know how to compare quantities measured at different places in space-time. Infact, it's a major discussion point in any differential geometry book because it leads to notions of parallel transportation and metric connections.
But you obviously didn't bother reading those books, despite the claim you had.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.