General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Does Einsteins 'Theory of Relativity' have major flaws?

Started by rb · · Last activity · 4 posts · 521 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
29 June 2003
Last activity
1 July 2003
Original author
rb
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
521
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. It is not commonly realized how many esoteric assumptions enter into even
    such apparently simple concepts as the speed of light and the geometric
    nature of the universe. To illustrate, a recent theory rather vigorously
    advocated by some astrophysicists strongly questions the constancy of the
    velocity of light in space and time, as well as the generally accepted
    Einsteinian nature of the universe. These writers regard the universe much
    more realistically as a Euclidian universe (3-dimensional, as in our
    everyday experience) and the velocity of light as constant with respect to
    its source, rather than with respect to any observer as Einstein does.

    'In essence, therefore, the method of this paper leaves astronomical space
    unchanged but reduces the time required for light to travel from a star to
    the earth.'

    [Parry Moon and Domina Eberle Spencer: 'Binary Stars and the Velocity of
    Light,' Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, August 1953, p.
    639]

    Or, more specifically, and rather surprisingly:

    'The acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einstein's
    relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of
    Euclidean space out to a distance of a few light years. Astronomical space
    remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in
    Riemannian space. In this way the time required for light to reach us from
    the most distant stars is only 15 years.'

    [Ibid., p. 635]

  2. In said:

    It is not commonly realized how many esoteric assumptions enter into even
    such apparently simple concepts as the speed of light and the geometric
    nature of the universe. To illustrate, a recent theory rather vigorously
    advocated by some astrophysicists strongly questions the constancy of the
    velocity of light in space and time, as well as the generally accepted
    Einsteinian nature of the universe. These writers regard the universe much
    more realistically as a Euclidian universe (3-dimensional, as in our
    everyday experience) and the velocity of light as constant with respect to
    its source, rather than with respect to any observer as Einstein does.

    'In essence, therefore, the method of this paper leaves astronomical space
    unchanged but reduces the time required for light to travel from a star to
    the earth.'

    [Parry Moon and Domina Eberle Spencer: 'Binary Stars and the Velocity of
    Light,' Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, August 1953, p.
    639]

    Well, since we're coming up on the 50th anniversary of this
    groundbreaking paper, how has is worked out in practice?

    Stuff like, for instance, its predictions of gravitational
    lens behavior. Quite a bit on that subject in the last
    50 years.

    --
    | Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
    | it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
    | for new products or new versions of existing products." |
    end

  3. rb said:

    'In essence, therefore, the method of this paper leaves astronomical space
    unchanged but reduces the time required for light to travel from a star to
    the earth.'

    [Parry Moon and Domina Eberle Spencer: 'Binary Stars and the Velocity of
    Light,' Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, August 1953, p.
    639]

    1953! Have they proved their theory yet?

    Tsu

    --
    To doubt everything or to believe everything
    are two equally convenient solutions; both
    dispense with the necessity of reflection.
    - Jules Henri Poincaré

  4. Tsu Dho Nimh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Current physics is far from being a complete science. It is filled
    with anomolies and contradictions i.e., the EM theory.

    According to Tom Bearden's website, there are 34 flaws in classic EM
    theory. http://www.cheniere.org/misc/flaws.htm

    Now back in Moray's time, his invention for free energy was rejected
    because he couldn't demonstrate where the energy was coming from (the
    vacuum).

    http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm
    In the early 1900s Dr T. Henry Moray of Salt Lake City produced a free
    energy device which he tried to get patented. However, despite showing
    how effectively the device worked his patent was denied on the grounds
    that he never satisfactorily explained where the electricity came
    from.

    Today Tom Bearden has a patent for a free energy device - see
    http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm

    This free energy ida has been suppressed since Tesla's time in favour
    of fossil fuel driven theories which the power elite can make money
    out of i.e., oil, oil and more oil.

    Carole
    http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.