| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » New pictures of enceladus
Page 14 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
|
| Author |
Message |
| Florian |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.
He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.
SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.
Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.
Poincarré's formulation was already complete in 1902, that's three years
before einstein.:
"There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
"La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
He was the fisrt to call it the "principle of relativity" in 1904.
From wiki:
"Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the
first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical
form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity
transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus
he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, the final
step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity."
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper,[14] but before Poincaré's longer version.[15] It
relied on the principle of relativity to derive the Lorentz
transformations and used the same clock synchronisation procedure that
Poincaré (1900) had described, but was remarkable in that it contained
no references at all."
That is plagiarism. period.
Quote:
And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...
Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.
Indeed it has nothing to do with that 19th century ether. But it is
still correspond to the definition of the ether: medium of propagation
of electromagnetic disturbances.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 2:06 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Quote: Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.
He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.
SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.
Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.
Poincarré's formulation was already complete in 1902, that's three years
before einstein.:
"There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
"La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
He was the fisrt to call it the "principle of relativity" in 1904.
From wiki:
"Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the
first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical
form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity
transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus
he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, the final
step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity."
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper,[14] but before Poincaré's longer version.[15] It
relied on the principle of relativity to derive the Lorentz
transformations and used the same clock synchronisation procedure that
Poincaré (1900) had described, but was remarkable in that it contained
no references at all."
COmplete and wrong.
Poicare still treated the ether is some sort of elastic medium.
Einstein showed you didn't need it.
Thats why he gets priority.
Poincare was close but not close enough.
Quote: That is plagiarism. period.
And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...
Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.
Indeed it has nothing to do with that 19th century ether. But it is
still correspond to the definition of the ether: medium of propagation
of electromagnetic disturbances.
And now you know why nobody talks about Poincare' in this context.
The whole point of Einstein's SR is that you don't need an ether to
propagate
electromagnetic disturbances. All you have done is now equivocate the
terms
"ether" and "vacuum".
Stuart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| oriel36 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 8:41 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 29, 2:06 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.
He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.
SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.
Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.
Poincarré's formulation was already complete in 1902, that's three years
before einstein.:
"There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
"La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
He was the fisrt to call it the "principle of relativity" in 1904.
From wiki:
"Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the
first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical
form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity
transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus
he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, the final
step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity."
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper,[14] but before Poincaré's longer version.[15] It
relied on the principle of relativity to derive the Lorentz
transformations and used the same clock synchronisation procedure that
Poincaré (1900) had described, but was remarkable in that it contained
no references at all."
COmplete and wrong.
Poicare still treated the ether is some sort of elastic medium.
Einstein showed you didn't need it.
Thats why he gets priority.
Poincare was close but not close enough.
That is plagiarism. period.
And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...
Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.
Indeed it has nothing to do with that 19th century ether. But it is
still correspond to the definition of the ether: medium of propagation
of electromagnetic disturbances.
And now you know why nobody talks about Poincare' in this context.
The whole point of Einstein's SR is that you don't need an ether to
propagate
electromagnetic disturbances. All you have done is now equivocate the
terms
"ether" and "vacuum".
Stuart- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
None of you have a background in astronomy and that is half the
problem with geological affairs.
I could give an education to any interested geologist who wishes to
develop an interest in the shocking possibility that geodynamics may
have some influence on the evolution of surface features through the
composition and rotation of its interior.As for relativity and
aether,well.that ,is interesting as a cautionary tale and even then
the problems were created by Newton.
The true version with technical details is far more interesting but
few are willing to exert themselves with the ins and outs of the
details toi come to a satisfactory understanding of the matter.There
are any numbver of ways to demonstrate an artificial situation,a sort
of storytelling which produced relativity and its exotic conclusions
but as you have hitched yourself to 'aether' and Albert's rejection of
it then that is where we shall go.
Back in the mid 19th century,they were stuck in a rut,Nerwton had
rejected a medium/aether and these guys were desperate to work on the
Sun illuminating the Earth with a medium without offending Isaac and
his followers,the top right column explains it all -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
This should draw a few frowns on the foreheads of some people here
insofar as Albert was supposed to reject Newton's his aether in
1905.So,what did Newton actually have to say about an aether or medium
-
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Optics
1704 Newton
Oh,I don't know,I would say words like "utterly rejected " are fairly
explicit so what happened that Albert could dump an aether on Newton
and reject it even after Isaac explicitly give the guys in the later
centuries a headache by rejecting an aether himself ?.As an
astronomer,a real one,I enjoy the doubletalk which emerged in the
early 20th century,the practictioners lost the desperation which
inflicted the guys in the middle of the 19th century by coming up
with a unique resolution - dump aether on Newton as 'absolute space'
and then reject it all over again -
"In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''" Albert 1920
No offence,I think it is hilarious the way it happened,I can't help
but enjoy the fiction but unfortunately I am had a difficult time
finding people who share the amusement.This is not about how Albert or
Newton was wrong,this is a wonderful look at the thought processes
involved in people who reach an impasse,the guys did in the mid 19th
century but did not have the astronomical talent to resolve the issue
and it remains the same today.As an astronomer,I know what Isaac was
talking about with absolute/relative space and time but it is nothing
like the fiction created to make way for relativity and in all the
years untangling the different strands that Isaac wove into his texts
by comparing his false,idiosyncrtatic and unethical notions with the
correct methods and insights of Copernicusa and Kepler I have yet to
meet a person who is interested in knowing what the actual central
theme of relativity is.
In a way,plate tectonics has reached a point where it will
disintegrate by being sucked into a competing status with ee or some
other exotic junk or die the usual empirical death of mediocrity.I
watched what happened when the empiricists hijacked my astronomical
tradition and put their stamp on it and eventually reaches this era of
unstable notions with no central theme.To be fair,analogies or the
experimental method has its uses but unfortunately they have their
limitations as the 'condiments as a geological mechanism' demonstrates
and unfortyunately geology may head the same way as astronomy, even if
I hope it does not.
I watch you pair move human characters around like chesspieces but
these poor individuals suffered the same problem that most here
have,,including yourselves, they assume that the foundational work of
their astronomiocal agenda was written with integrity and honesty,but
as I am an astronomer and very capable to judge these things,I am
sorry to report that no such honesty was intended -
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Many people know that something has stopped dead recently in the
matter of celestial and terrestrial sciences,nothing new coming in and
nothing to do but attack or circle the wagons against them there
Christians.As a Christian,I would do what I can to promote geology and
astronomy come what may and if that means never taking a day off then
so be it., |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Timberwoof |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<59221926-c4d3-45e4-84f3-01c8e04e54b0@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: None of you have a background in astronomy and that is half the
problem with geological affairs.
Some of us have a better understanding of astronomy than you do.
Quote: I could give an education to any interested geologist who wishes to
develop an interest in the shocking possibility that geodynamics may
have some influence on the evolution of surface features through the
composition and rotation of its interior.As for relativity and
aether,well.that ,is interesting as a cautionary tale and even then
the problems were created by Newton.
None of which has much to do with basic astronomy, the fundamentals of
which you have shown you know very little about.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| oriel36 |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 11:00 am, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote: Stuart wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:06 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.
He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.
SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.
Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.
Poincarré's formulation was already complete in 1902, that's three years
before einstein.:
"There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
"La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
He was the fisrt to call it the "principle of relativity" in 1904.
From wiki:
"Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the
first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical
form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity
transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus
he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, the final
step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity."
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper,[14] but before Poincaré's longer version.[15] It
relied on the principle of relativity to derive the Lorentz
transformations and used the same clock synchronisation procedure that
Poincaré (1900) had described, but was remarkable in that it contained
no references at all."
COmplete and wrong.
Poicare still treated the ether is some sort of elastic medium.
Einstein showed you didn't need it.
Thats why he gets priority.
Poincare was close but not close enough.
That is plagiarism. period.
And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...
Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.
Indeed it has nothing to do with that 19th century ether. But it is
still correspond to the definition of the ether: medium of propagation
of electromagnetic disturbances.
And now you know why nobody talks about Poincare' in this context.
The whole point of Einstein's SR is that you don't need an ether to
propagate
electromagnetic disturbances. All you have done is now equivocate the
terms
"ether" and "vacuum".
Stuart
actually, it was James Clek Maxwell that proved radiation does not need
a medium 50 years before Michelson and Morely. Einstein knew about
Maxwell's mathematics and he incorporated it. the fact that Einstein
used other folks results was not plagerism. and he provided a testable
condition. mass bends light. some folks went and looked at an eclipse
( their measurements were bogus.) but current radio astronomy tests the
condition near the sun every day as a confirmation of SR.
josephus
--
As concepts become more and more unstable and the background
conditions for doing anything productive in
astronomy,geology,climatology or other Earth sciences become more
bleak ,I think people's patience will eventually run out with
concepts which no longer have a central theme.In an oblique way,the
original promotion of relativity was straightforward,the so-called
'revolution' based on jettisoning Newton's absolute space by
associating it with a medium/aether via Michelson-Morley remains the
only way to look at that exotic junk,even Albert tells it like it is -
"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to
know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the
conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to
the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as fact.
This was the first path which lead me to the special theory of
relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the [presumed
absolute] motion of the earth [through this imaged ether] cannot be
detected by any optical experiment, though the earth is revolving
around the sun." --- Found in: How I created the theory of
relativity, translation of a lecture Einstein gave in Japan in 1922,
translated by Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Aug 1982, p46.
It all goes back to Flamsteed/Newton with a major contributor being
Bradley but nothing can really be achieved without looking at the
double mistake of Flamsteed in timekeeping and Newton in structural
astronomy and comparing their errors with the correct antecedent
astronomical timekeeping and structural principles.
.I have nothing to gain by criticising dynamicists unduly,after
all,they inherit the errors from previous investigators but on the
same token,they have nothing to gain by adhering to a fabricated story
of aether/absolute space and making a big deal out of it.I have
already explained what Newton's absolute/relative space is in terms
of his false approach to and resolution of retrogrades as a foundation
for his ballistic agenda applied to the Ra/Dec system where axial
rotation is tangled up with an astrological framework but too many
seem lost in the labyrinth Newton created to find themselves clear to
see what is going on.
No offence,but to untangle the concepts is a tiring and thankless
business and I wish more would become involved without having to
resort to a bunker mentality.It is crucial to resolve the situatiuon
rather than remain in contention regarding a concept which no longer
has a central theme.
Quote: I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on
different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know
that gets you in trouble
its what you know that ain so.
--josh billings.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| josephus |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart wrote:
Quote: On Apr 29, 2:06 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.
He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.
SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.
Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.
Poincarré's formulation was already complete in 1902, that's three years
before einstein.:
"There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
"La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
He was the fisrt to call it the "principle of relativity" in 1904.
From wiki:
"Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the
first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical
form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity
transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus
he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, the final
step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity."
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper,[14] but before Poincaré's longer version.[15] It
relied on the principle of relativity to derive the Lorentz
transformations and used the same clock synchronisation procedure that
Poincaré (1900) had described, but was remarkable in that it contained
no references at all."
COmplete and wrong.
Poicare still treated the ether is some sort of elastic medium.
Einstein showed you didn't need it.
Thats why he gets priority.
Poincare was close but not close enough.
That is plagiarism. period.
And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...
Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.
Indeed it has nothing to do with that 19th century ether. But it is
still correspond to the definition of the ether: medium of propagation
of electromagnetic disturbances.
And now you know why nobody talks about Poincare' in this context.
The whole point of Einstein's SR is that you don't need an ether to
propagate
electromagnetic disturbances. All you have done is now equivocate the
terms
"ether" and "vacuum".
Stuart
actually, it was James Clek Maxwell that proved radiation does not need
a medium 50 years before Michelson and Morely. Einstein knew about
Maxwell's mathematics and he incorporated it. the fact that Einstein
used other folks results was not plagerism. and he provided a testable
condition. mass bends light. some folks went and looked at an eclipse
( their measurements were bogus.) but current radio astronomy tests the
condition near the sun every day as a confirmation of SR.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on
different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know
that gets you in trouble
its what you know that ain so.
--josh billings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 14 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat May 17, 2008 3:04 am
|
|
