English - Srpski
This is the page where you can submit your link about the negations of the results of my project,
if you are expert of the pseudoscience or the scientist in some of the areas that are mentioned in the project.
The only fair play requirement is that in own criticism put the link toward the page of my explanation.
*) The ideality for negation:
When one single person,
without any professional skill,
so arrogantly set up so concrete assertions
about all most important things,
such are claims that:
- Jehovah are Ahhiyawa people
- Christ is concrete Egyptian scientific title
- Holy trinity are H & He in Sun + O3 in Sky
- 99 & 108 divine names are chem. elements
- Golden Age had high technology, ... etc.
it must be the ideal classic example
of the human laic sinfulness
|
|
1) The links
of negations |
|
2) Your and my
sincere behoof |
|
3) + Security
provocation to science |
1) Welcome among the critics of this project
- Dr Mark Newbrook, the skeptic linguist: Lord's prayer in serbian |
2) Your and my sincere behoof
a) Your behoof
We are all witnessed that pseudoscience has more and more space in the media.
And it certainly has some dose of negative consequences for society.
The views expressed on this site by its concreteness and openness are enough clear for analysis.
Since these attitudes are original, and are not designed for the target group, there is no social group that will be offended with your criticism.
a) My behoof
Despite so many experience of mankind, it is interesting that the classic layman's behavior, and behavior of a large number of experts,
is still consistently based on the effort that with own view can and should momentarily persuade other people in own truth.
Luckily, my problem is more modest.
Until I can not finance this book, it is important to me, at least, to certify my authorship over the assertions presented on the site.
Therefore, any your reaction, and negative too, is useful for me.
After all, when someone says something about someone, it still does not mean that anything is said about him,
and anyone, with own statement certainly says something about himself.
3) + The security provocation to the science
But since, the opinions are always some kind of the war, and that this is some war, line is to use a bit of roughness ...
For my concept, the most important pseudo-scientific work is the one that could be called:
.Magic eclipses of Euclidean geometry of space
or
"My theory (about the special and the general theories of relativity) 1916."
(Albert Einstein - Sezam Book d.o.o. Zrenjanin)
Namely, it is clear why those poor wretches who raise credits from banks usually do not read what wrote in the contracts with small print,
but did not clear why the abundantly knowledge of mankind can not read the beginning of the Albert Einstein's book, where nice writing:
"I want to know how God created this world,
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
Simply is delight to watch so many atheists and Christians who enjoy in the efforts of Mr. Einstein, to be them higher rabbi than rabbis.
Mr. Einstein would not want to ask, neither the God, neither the phenomena in nature, but learns thoughts of God from his own mathematics. Smartly, firstly freed himself of all possible witnesses.
I have not heard of a similar example of self-centeredness in the field of pseudoscience. After all, is unclear: why his theory is called: the relativity, and not: the god?
But, let's see, toward what kind of thoughts goes this God ...
Already in the first part, at the start, Einstein attacked the views of elementary (Euclidean) geometry,
that was been sovereign over the world from 300 BC, as one of rare indisputable fact. And about this, humanity was thought that is brought to perfection.
But be careful toward how he did it:
He used the fact that the dimensions of the imaginary dots, and the thickness of the imaginary straight are infinitely small and are not the same like our necessary concept about it, as a forms with a physical "bodies".
Ie, the main problem is that we can not accurately measured positions of these "bodies",
and when we measure the positions of the three dots on one line, they are only approximately situated, but are not really in the same line.
So, Mr. Einstein, is not like a classical pseudo scientists, wrongly exercised measure to get the adjusted result, but the "sinfulness" leaves to us,
not stating this as a necessary deviation in measuring of infinitesimal small sizes. Therefore, this declinations, intentionally and totally groundlessly,
he converted into the relativity of the position of measured dots.
At the very start he was to be disqualified, but the point of pseudoscience is that in front of our eyes done
something that we can not deny, to distract us from the most elementary rules in science.
And since we really can never measure the exact position of three dots in the same line - "Einstein is right."
But Mr. Euclid also knew this, with that, that he used geometry to be closer to the truth, while Mr. Einstein used this in order that the first term that he attacks in his book was: "the truth ".
Mr. Einstein attacked the truth of geometry with the fact that our measuring instruments are not enough precise for a geometric notions.
In this way, he was presented the mathematics as the psychological philosophy, and own success he was based on the lability of a suffering students with the rigidity of strict mathematical science.
In fact this is, technically speaking, the classical magic trick, with that, that is completely transparent.
May be at the very beginning to see exactly how works the hand that distracts our attention, and what and why works hand that obscures reality.
But the question is: how is it possible that that this has any success?
The point is simple. What magician's audiences watching its are a colorful things with which the audiences has nothing, and in what the Einstein's audiences looks
is the statement that: "We are smarter than that terrible Euclid". And it's called: the human vanity. Or: the revenge of bad students.
Einstein has a Democratic majority, on both sides, outside the scientific systems and within it.
However, this psychology would not be passed, that the mankind, precisely in this period, is not met with the very unpleasant problem.
In fact, just after the mankind recently been mastered with the notions about the earthly and cosmic spaces, and with the attitude that in the universe must exist other
thinking living beings, it became clear that the cosmic spaces are so far, and that the technology of human movement, not only physical, but also informationally,
is so slow, that it is probably impossible to make contact with them, and that mankind is likely doomed to eternal loneliness.
Under the laws of classical mathematics, for the light is needed to travel toward for us nearest star entire 4.2 years. And what about the others?
There was no other than, in the physics, to threaten the concepts of the space and the time. Mathematically, if we does not specify precisely what we actually
measure and in relation to what, we are free "to distort" spaces, regulate the "speed" of time, and with combining we can "multiply" both space and time,
depending toward which facts we close our eyes, and in relation to how kind of result we want.
Thus was began the big "CARNIVAL" of mathematical philosophy, the new god of humanity - the false calculation.
And what else can to work the one Jew in the Christian culture, but to play the Savior?
And when we are at this, the Einstein's psychological philosophy we might call: the revenge of good mortals.
Because, in this way, we are defeated the sole two things that are: truly eternal, unchangeable and indestructible: - the space and the time.
.The Einstein's philosophical calculator God really does not throws the dice at random - he cheats at cards, in such a way that any combination wins...
The atheists are happy, because the God is in the science, the theists are happy because the science is in the God.
The immortals are happy, because they can share the immortality with everyone.
The mortals are happy, because they can to multiply a mortality for all time.
In one word - The one soulful man..
After just 2 pages of I head: "The physical content of geometrical statements",
we not need go further. The mentioned three dots and straight have no physical "content".
The chapter should be called: the perception of physical content that has no essentiality for the geometric statements (claims),
but then there would be no purpose of writing this chapter, because there would be no manipulations.
(Note:) I really do not know who is "sold" to the English versions the German form § 1 "Physikalischer Inhalt geometrischer Sätze"
as "Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions", but it is clear that this meaning is very meaningless.
Chapter III: "Space and time in classical mechanics",
explains the case when the stone is dropped in free fall from the wagon in the move, depending did the reference body is the wagon that moves ,or the ground on that wagon moves.
The man, who is in the wagon, sees that the stone fall right down, while the external observer sees that the stone moves in the parable.
While Einstein said: "From this example it is clear that some path of movement does not exist alone per se
but only as a path of movement relative to some determined reference body.",
in fact, always there is an absolute path of movement of any body. But, if we want cavil, that we can know this path, it would be necessary that in
addition to data on the movement of wagon by the ground, we use the data of the movement of Earth in relation to the solar system, the movements
of the solar system in relation to the Galaxy, the movements of Galaxy relative to cosmos, and movement of the cosmos in relation to the absolute
coordinates of the space.
But since that every reference body moves relative to each other,
we are unable to calculate the coordinates of the space that are stationary. Because the itself space
is not moving, but it is not the body, that we can to have the coordinates tied to the condition of inaction.
Ie. hypothetically, in the case that absolutely nothing will not affect to the movement of the light, then we could
to surround the planet earth with a few mirrors and calculate its absolute movement in space, and in relation to it to calculate the movement of the stone.
But, since that, the Light is also still some kind of a body, it must to have the influence from the inertia ie. the gravity.
Above all, the enormous speed and low mass of the Light, are a particular problem for the calculation, in relation toward which gravitational reference body,
the light reacts in what extent. I assume that it is more tied for the global inertia-gravity, and that less for the local.
So, in each case, here is the word about the replacement of thesis. The classical "virtues" of the pseudoscience.
With the impossibility of actually computing Einstein denies the absolute path of movement.
And, because of the fact that we do not can clearly calculate the paths, he says thatis clear
that: the paths do not exist for themselves. No, the paths just are not exist clear for us.
VII "The apparent Incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity"
The problem with the behavior of light, where the speed of light that is sent from the wagon in motion can not to be added to the speed of wagon,
Einstein was transferred to the "special theory of relativity", without that the reader could understand why the "theoretical physicists" always been inclined to bring
down the principle of relativity, and that, for some reason, it survives in accordance with, probably, the application of physics in practice.
However, who is the physicist who was measured the effects of the influences of the reference bodies to the movement of light?
In what way the speed of the wagon can affect the body with extremely low mass and extremely high starting speed?
The Einstein's comparative example from classical mechanics is the foot passenger who in one moment commencing his own motion in the wagon,
in the direction of movement of the wagon. But, this foot passenger, until that moment, had equal speed as the speed of wagon, and his movement is based on
counteraction of the floor of the wagon. And, how much been the speed of the light? Zero, or even none? Because, the light, until the beginning of movement,
is in the complex of quite different material form. And the light is actually "created" on the beginning of its movement.
Not in vain the true nature of light is one of the key questions of modern physics.
So, Einstein was relied on a body whose nature and properties we do not know enough. With reason, therefore, he is at the very beginning said
that he is not interested for this or that phenomenon, only to later, without any obligation, can to compare two completely different phenomena.
VIII Ajnstajn "About the notion (concept) of time in physics"
Einstein firstly "three days" needlessly adjusts the same time on a three identical clocks, to explain the "seriousness of his analyticity", and then in the IX chapter, "The relativity of simultaneity"
allegedly "he checks": did, the two simultaneous thunder strokes at point A and B in comparison to the railway track,
are "simultaneous" in comparison to the train,
and "immediately shows that the answer must be negative".
In fact, he has forgotten to say to us that two events are simultaneous in relation to the times of their events,
and not in relation to the times of delays of the observer's information about these events.
The statement: "The events that have been simultaneous in relation to railway embankment, are not simultaneous in relation to the train and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).",
in fact can not to refer to events, but refer to the information about the events.
The sentence: "Every reference body (coordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference body to which the statement of time refers,
there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.",
is supposed to look like: During of our calculations, that follow events in relation to the some reference body, it is necessary to take into account differences in
the delay of information to the observer, depending to whom reference body (coordinate system) belongs which observer, and which event, that we can avoid mistakes
from the wrong computations of one and the same one-off events in the different times of one event.
Because the observer from the railway track (embankment), and the observer from the wagon, of course, do not live in different worlds,
but because they are in the systems of the different movements of the different reference bodies, they receive the different delays of the informations.
XI The Lorentz Transformations
In this way, Einstein was, totally groundless, attacked the postulates of adherence to reality in the classical mechanics, according to which:
1) The time interval between two events is independent from the state of motion of the reference body.
2) The spatial distance between two points of a solid body is independent from the state of motion of the reference body.
XII "The behavior of a sticks and clocks in motion" & XIII "The theorem about the addition of velocities - the experiment of Fizeau -
In the sentence: "Now in practice we can move clocks and measuring-rods only with velocities that are small compared with the velocity of light;
hence we shall hardly be able to compare the results of the previous section directly with the reality.",
the word "results" is groundlessly used for changes relative to the time or the physical body.
The word is actually about the results of the illusions from the incomplete calculations.
Simply put, since that Einstein based all upon the trick of delay information, if we imagine any body, stick or spacecraft, from whose two opposite ends
we receive signals (eg with speed of light) about the condition of the time on clocks that are located in these ends, compared toward the clock that is with us,
a) if this body is distant from us, our informations are late, ie. we get outdated informations, from the past,
as we get it about the positions of stars, which would be a poet said, "that are maybe extinct long ago", and yet we see that there is still shine in the sky.
But these informations are constantly outdated. The "speeds" of the clocks, at this body, those are real, but it is obvious constant delay relative to the clock located with us.
b) However, if the body moves away from us, the delay of informations are increased, and on the picture of clocks,
that we get, the time as that slow down as compared to the rate at which it really records the clock that is with us.
Hence comes the impression of slowing down time, that is only in digits easier visible when the movement is faster.
c) And conversely, if the body is approaching to us, the "pictures" of the passage of time on his clocks is "accelerated".
And when the body finally is back on earth, we can see that the images of time, on our and its clocks, are equaled.
In fact, nothing has happened with the time, but it all happened only in the sphere of differences in the delays of informations.
d) But there is the one more thing. Namely we with its clocks can get same pictures, only if both ends are equally distant from us,
ie. if are in normal position toward us, and the body in relation to us is turned with his flank. Regardless of whether this body is moving away,
or is approaching, we will conclude that its length is constant. But if the body is moving away or approaches, at some angle (simplest: under normal angle),
when the speed is higher the greater is differences in deviations between its clocks, because, the difference of the distances of the ends, it implies the
more considerable change of the delay of informations from the further end in relation to the closer end.
*) And now, depending on "with which of our eyes we will to squint"
we might say: that
- the time flows differently at the ends,
- or that the length of the body varies.
Therefore, Mr. Einstein "nicely" gave us only the theoretical formulas of the differences between two reference bodies,
and its calculations, without a concrete lengths and distances, we can not capture it either the tail or the head.
But how we would not have been deprived of the some concrete "provability",
Einstein gives to us the experiment of Fizeau.
So, let's see this wonder, that was carried half a century earlier, and then repeated by a numerous experimental physicists.
This time this is not a light that we sent through the wagon, but the light that we sent through the tube with the liquid, wherein, the liquid is now what was been the wagon.
So, whenever something proves Einstein used light, for which I have already said that is the extreme physical body, and he puts us in the situation in front of
the blindingly shine of reflectors. The experimental result itself is described with the deep philosophical way, wherein it is not known: neither, with what the
philosopher is started the explanation, neither with which he is completed, neither, did any part have anything to do with the rest of the explanation.
However, pardon, we know that he began with the words: "within the meaning of the principle of relativity, we will assume ..."
and that he continued with: "known is the speed of light in relation to the liquid, like the speed of liquid in relation to the tube"
and even that this was supposed to end with: "and we looking for the speed of light in relation to the tube".
But in the book, the exposed experiment, according to his custom, has no any concrete digit (number).
It's like when someone sends you the waiter, and he say to you: looking from our reference system of our financial needs, you have spent enough time here to
eat all from our menu, and since it is known that the values in the menu are a + b + c +. .. final sum must be = x. Please pay!
Well at least that you know how much is x, but you invert wallet, and say: since I do not know how many is here, that's probably x.
And you will be happy that they let you exit without the calculation, because you will not have to wash the tube through that was passing the valued liquid of Mr. Fizeau.
XV "The general results of the (special) theory (of relativity)"
Well, likewise, were happy also physicists with the "waiter's result", because, as Mr. Einstein said:
"even when the experiment was not sufficiently spoke in favor of this theory".
And since this game already has become too boring, the analysis I will finish with the beginning of the
XVI chapter, because it is called "The special theory of relativity and the experience" ( Spezielle Relativitätstheorie und Erfahrung ).
Since it will explain to us the essentially "benefit" of the theory of relativity.
Einstein would say it on the next way: "To what extent is the special theory of relativity supported by experience? This question is not easily answered
for the reason already mentioned in connection with the fundamental experiment of Fizeau. The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from
the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the theory of relativity."
As for myself, I'll be more clearer.
From the relative accounts, we have never had nor will have any benefits.
But therefore, the physicists, when faced in front of some extreme bodies from
the field of behavior of light or electromagnetism in general, whose behaviors are not clear,
use the relative account, and thus, they get rid of the suffering.
We have no damage and they have used. The wolf is full and satisfied and all sheep are present on the number.
Plus that, the freedom of choice of the reference system provides the pluralistic philosophical breadth, as when you choose
- do you want to observe Jesus from a philosophical reference system, in which, he is a fictional person,
- from a philosophical reference system in which he is the obsessed schizophrenic person,
- or from a philosophical reference system in which he is the over-reasonable embodiment of pure divine spirituality.
It is important, only that you does not observes from the realistic absolute system of available data and of their complicated matching,
because it's not only hard, and not only non pluralistic, but because is necessary to give up of the any alluring hope.
It is interesting to note that, on similar simple manner, it was also pleaded Nikola Tesla saying:
"... magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.
The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ...
its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists." (New York Times, 11 July 1935, p 23, c.8)
If you now look at the names of the known anti-relativists: wikipedia: Criticism of relativity theory
you will see that they mostly belong to the period from the beginning of the theory. At first glance, appear to have simply the physicists over time accepted by
Einstein's theory. However, in order to understand what actually happened, it is necessary to note that modern physics, all the most important practically useful
and evident results, has given us, ending with the time of creativity of innovators such as Nikola Tesla, and then is ended in the current primarily theoretical "results".
In this regard the 2 things are important:
1) Something similar has already happened with the fall of the Pericles' Golden Athens, where the results of the exacting physicists, due to lack of information incorrectly called "meta-physicists",
are replaced with the philosophical schools of Plato and Aristotle, so to speak: with the school system of an abstract theorizing.
2) Going back to the definition of the science, wherein the real science involves - verifiability; if we pay attention to the words of Prof. Dr. Velimira
Abramovica: "... today, none of the famous scientist, does not seriously deliberate that physically interpreted the mathematics that applied himself.",
we can see that the modern physics is fall into the phase of learnings that are not verifiable. And thus, in the phase dominance profiles of the people who are prone the
over-physical attitudes.
And that happened at each collapse stage of the science. With this oversight, that the many former physicist, as Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Anaximenes,
Protagoras, atomists, etc. ... wrong we considered for the meta-physicists, while the current dominant meta-physicists we consider the physicists.
.
The main reason for this thoughtless rotation lay in the permanent sociological rudeness in the identifying of the individuals
with the global forms of societies in times in which they live.
.
The excellent explanation of the real social background of the reasons for the popularity of the wrong theory of relativity:
Einstein's theory of relativity a brief analysis by Ove Tedenstig
The resistance with the unpleasant topic "twins paradox" you can see on the page
Twin paradox
( Einstein views about science and religion you can see on the website: Einstein: Science and Religion by: Arnold V. Lesikar, Dept. of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science, St. Cloud State University )
.
|
|
