Equivalence principle, is absolutely wrong!
more.....http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/docume...uivalence.html
Christos A. Tsolkas

Equivalence principle, is absolutely wrong!
more.....http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/docume...uivalence.html
Christos A. Tsolkas
oh god not another maniac who think he is stupid enough to acctualy be smarter than einstein
I kinda read part way through that and stoped understanding completely, how about a brief summary?
Equivalence priciple: You are in a rocket (a light year away from earth say)travelling at the same rate of G as the gravity on earth.Originally Posted by Captain_Anubis
An item(or you even) dropped towards the ground/steel flooring will fall at a rate of 9.8ms^2. There will also be a minute time difference(increase) between the top and the bottom of the rocket.
Both the rocket and earth are absolutely equivalent and both take into account general relativity  THEY ARE EQUIVOLENT! and ALL measurement has demonstrated it true!
Haha, found the error already. The first part of his first relation is not the correct form of conservation of energy. He just threw a whole lot of terms togher to make a formula that would convenietly disprove einstein. The conse rvation of energy formula is U+K=C. Any conservation of energy formula from classical mechanics MUST have a constant C term in its formula, and he has failed to put one in. Thus, his conclutions cannot be accurate due to his incorrect formula for COE.
Now lets see how many of his experiments i can disprove =D.
Experiment 1:
He assumes his two aircraft to be inertial reference frames, but they are not. If they move at a constant velocity, Then the spherical form of earth's gravity will cause the force within the aircraft will vary. If they move around the earth, then they may be inertial reference frames localy, but they cannot be considered inertial reference frames with respect to each other, as his "experiment" does.
Experiment 2:
"An aircraft B is moving towards transmitter A at a steady velocity υ, across a straight line and at the same altitude h." By virtue of flying towards the transmitter at a constant velocity, the plane cannot remain at a constant velocity. Also, if it were flying at a constant speed, they could not fly at a constant height. Also he says that the light moves at speed C relative to the plane, but that is wrong. The plane merely OBSERVES the light ray to move at a speed C.
Experiment 3:
Sorry, dont have enough time for this one right now, will work on it later.
Experiment 4:
In this experiment he just says "The answer is NO!" but the answer is, in fact, yes. Go and do it.
Experiment 5:
"If Experiment ΧΤ b is conducted, then UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever will observer Π΄ notice inside his automobile S΄ the presence of a magnetic field (either a steady or changing one), and certainly he will not notice the presence of any electromagnetic field (steady or changing one)." He obviously ahsnt conducted the experiment, because this conclusion is WRONG. (lol)
Experiment 6:
Well, he doesn't claim a result in this experiment, but im fairly sure that this experiment cant even be carried out, because all of the gamma waves will come out at different frequencies, so there is no way tell what the initial "v" of the wave is and there is thus no way to determine how much the doppler effect takes place.
Experiment 7:
Same as #6, just a different equation is applied.
Experiment 8:
Well, several things are wrong with this one. First is an error in measurement. You dont measure the "velocity of revolution." There is only an angular velocity and a radius, from which an absolute velocity can be calculated. Aside from that, There is no evidence currently supporting the fact that the galaxy is revolving around anything. Also, This is a very funny experiment to carry out. The detector on Earth will notice something very strange that is NOT predicted by the New Ether Theory. The detector will be very surprised to find that no matter how many times the experiment is carried out, the detector will notice that the signals from the satellite will always come more frequently than expected. This frequency increase is due to a prediction of Relativity and is not predicted by the New Ether Theory. And about the MM rebutal, that is all just a dodge. One would have to understand the nature of the ether, which nobody does. If one doesn't understand the nature of the ether, then there is no reason to believe the existence of an "etherosphere," for all fluids we know of will NOT exibit this behavior around a sphere traveling through the fluid.
Finaly, about the Mercury idea that was proposed. Sorry, but the rotation of the sun WAS taken into account in the calculation of the rotation Murcury's perihelion.
OK, well, there you go. I have just disproven nearly all of what was "Proven." if you have any problems with what i have posted, post on the forums or email me.
+Tsolk, Zel, Captain, Imaplanck, *Vroom (*You The Man, Vroom):
As the world's #1 EinsteinGroupie (of Albert, 'The /\xe'):
Bravissimo. I couldn't (ever) have responded more appropriately.
( Cosmological Constant is abandoned! Awwwk! Cosmological Constant was abandoned! Awwwk! Biggest blunder of his life! Awwk! )
Meanwhile (+take solemn heed), it's looking more and more like the only 'blunder' Einstein made with the CC ( THE GREAT ERROR OF EINSTEIN. Awwwk! ), was allowing Hubble Inc. to persuade him to abandon it in the first place. He was back to working on it in Princeton to the time of his death 5/'55... (Si)
Einstein bashers take tremulous note: it's not over, until it's over.
____________________
"...Descarte was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the General Principle of Relativity, to show the true kernel of Descarte's idea, 'there exists no space empty of field'."  Einstein, p.p.375  6, IDEAS & OPINIONS.
"Regarding the tenability of gravitation as an impelling force, paralleled by the Cosmological Constant as a repelling force, a natural and complementary occurrence of this apparently incongruous ambiguity exists and prevails in the fact that omnidirectional electric field lines around a positive charge are directed away and outward from the center of the charge; whereas, the field lines around a negative charge move inward, toward the center of the charge."  K.B. Robertson, p. 521, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, Copyright 1979.
"In one of the most reckless and sweeping generalisations in the history of thought, Newton filled the entire space of the Universe with interacting forces of attraction (*the causal identity of which remains to be determined), issuing from all particles of matter and acting upon all particles of matter across the boundless abysses of darkness."  Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS (*=KBR)
"I do find gravity an attractive force, at times."  K.B.Robertson. Ibid.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."  Hermann Minkowski, 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists & Physicists, 1908.
"Matter and space are seen to be inseperable and interdependent parts of a single whole."  Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 208
"According to the physicistphilosopher Ernst Mach... material objects not only determine the structure of the surrounding space, but are in turn influenced by their environment in an essential way."  Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 209
"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3D and 4D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics (*as opposed to the fact that an exact definition does exist in geometry, and, whereby mathematics is by routine academicscientific standards, authoritatively based). *= KBR's additions.
Buckminster Fuller, on the 4th D, continued:
"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geomentrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...
"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics. We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'"  R Buckminster Fuller, 4D TIMELOCK, p. 17
(Perhaps the most prominent fact of palpably angry contention here, is Mr. Fuller's emphasis that, though a geometric point doesn't exist, it is nonetheless: plane and solid geometry shaped spheroidal; round; not cubicle. Emphasizing that when a given Geometric Point moves, generating a One Dimensional Straight Line, it does so at right angles  90 o perpendicular  to itself. Commencing the extrapolation of rightangleruled dimensions that follow, from the geometric point to the <generally unrecognized  popularly  said to be  'acknowledged, but yet to be formally and academically recognized and functionally applied> 4th dimension of matter, to the electricity moving at right angles from matter, thereby defining the 5th dimension as electricity, at right angles to which moves magnetism, thereby defining the 6th dimension. There are no precedents for the herein employed standards of identification and recognition of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions.)
After an especially compelling dramatic performance at the theatre, particularily of a new work, the audience may cry out "Author, Author".
Allow me, Puff, to call out "Abstract, Abstract".
It is the only way in which your intent stand any chance of becoming clear to this reader.
« Ufos on consideration!  Noninvariant laws in Physics » 