Time for some public recantation, you'd think -- unless you already knew Hoagland's standard behavior of hiding when his pronouncements and predictions are shown to be false. As a matter of fact, right now he's doing an unprecedented job of hiding.
* Last update of his primitive web site: April 2014
* Last update of his Fartbook fan page: May 2012
* Last update of his Fuckbook "personal" page: Too far off to find
* Last appearance on Coast to Coast AM: 22nd April 2014 (there are rumors that George Noory is pissed off with him)
* Last known public appearance: 31st August 2014, Caravan to Midnight (when he made the claim about 67P)
* Update: He was on something called the Tom Anderson Show much more recently (7th Nov) peddling the same story. Again, unchallenged.
Update 22nd Nov: Noory announced last night that RCH is not on the naughty chair and will be back soon. Apparently he moved house "and it did not go well," whatever that means.
Well done, ESA
This blog adds its congratulations to the tidal wave sweeping over Arianespace, Astrium, ESA and its many, many collaborators. As of this writing, Philae may be on its side and rapidly running out of battery power, but to have got it that far is a gigantic achievement. Update: Turned out that it wasn't lying on its side after all, but the batteries failed on 14 Nov.
NOT well done, Mike Bara
Mike Bara, the world-renowned theoretical physicist, came up with a blogpost this week that clanged somewhat like Big Ben would if it fell onto Westminster Bridge (yes, folks, the term Big Ben technically refers to the bell, not the tower it sits in). He gave us his analysis of the physics implied in the recently-released movie Interstellar, and in the process reiterated his well-known opinion that modern astrophysics is mostly rubbish, and physicists are idiots -- especially Neil deGrasse Tyson, who Bara calls a "science choad" no less than eight times (a choad being a short fat penis).
He's not 100% wrong about physics -- I share his skepticism about dark matter/dark energy, for instance. But in writing that wormholes are nonsense because nobody has ever seen one, he's missing the point so spectacularly that the point is rumored to have committed suicide in despair. Quite likely wormholes don't exist, or if they do it's extremely hard to see how human space travelers could put one to effective use. But a wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen bridge to give it its posh name, is a legitimate solution to the equations of General Relativity, and thus is of interest to theoretical physics. That arcane discipline, almost by definition, does not require the things it studies to be actually observable. Mike dear, think of a wormhole as a way of teaching relativity, not something that will necessarily ever be confirmed to exist.
Time dilation is another matter. Well understood and accurately measured, this phenom is responsible, for instance, for the fact that GPS satellites have their time-keeping adjusted to account for the reduced gravity field at 20,000 km altitude. Mike Bara the world-famous engineer wrote this:
"[T]here is some evidence to support time dilation, but it is pretty sketchy. As an example, identical nuclear clocks have been used to measure the passage of time on Earth relative to the passage of time in orbit, in near weightless conditions. The clocks farther away from the 1G gravitational field of Earth were found to operate faster than the ones on Earth. But this is categorically NOT proof that time passes more slowly under the influence of gravity. It is only proof that clocks operate more slowly under the influence of gravity. Since no one has a clue what time really is, the idea that we can measure it is a fairy tale. None of these experiments have actually measured the speed of time. They have only measured the effects of gravity on mechanical instruments, i.e. clocks."I can assure Mike Bara that a GPS satellite does not function by mechanical clockwork. In fact, there are no moving parts at all.
Bara then quoted himself, in a passage from his book The Choice which demonstrated his utter ignorance of the nature of gravitation, and ended with this dictum:
" Science is observation, experimentation, measurement and insight."I posted the following comment, with no expectation that Bara would allow it to be seen:
"Quite right. You'd do well to remember that precept before expounding on the false pseudo-science you call hyperdimensional physicsnote 1. A few notes:====================================
- None of the examples you cite of energy upwelling at 19.5° latitude are valid.
- Hoagland thinks nothing of lying in order to promote this idea -- as he did in respect of the Port-au-Prince earthquake.
- None of the top ten earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in history have been at 19.5°.
- Hoagland's Accutron "experiments"note 2 are a joke. No controls, no baselines, no data on the orientation of the device. The maximum recorded frequency excursions he ever reported were recorded at a time when there was no eclipse and no transit.
- In summary, neither you nor Hoagland has either observed or measured HD physics. Neither you nor Hoagland has conducted any meaningful or acceptable experiments. It's a fraud."
 See this summary
 See this
Expat: "Churyumov–Gerasimenko .... IS NOT an abandoned space station and DOES NOT feature skyscrapers and glass apartment blocks, as Hoagland claimed earlier this year".
BSP on his blog: "You are on record ... as saying that 67P/CG was a spaceship with skyscrapers on it."
It would help me a bit to have a reference to that claim or record, or perhaps a full quotation. Was in on a radio show? Generally when challenging a claim, no matter the level of insanity, it helps to have the complete thing or its origin handy. Of course I could try to find it but for those things I thought to have these blogs! :-)
By the way, even the most recent photo's might still tempt the usual folks to see many unusual shapes and forms. It's not a debate that is winnable really as the starting point seems utterly misguided: it is simply not well defined in advance what would qualify as potentially artificial and what not by the anomaly hunters. So the "anomaly game" can and will never be lost (however the point of that game, any game, is not science but a mixture of entertainment, wonder and religion, wrapped herein scientific produce).
Now as for Hoagland, I do expect him to come out soon as his attention is guaranteed devoted to this. Perhaps he's waiting for more anomalies, perhaps he's going for the bounce landing or tries to find something in the data itself. But he'll be back! Perhaps trying to time it with a radio show and/or the shutting down of power of the probe.
It's somewhere in here, Dee.
Well that's a bloody lot! But I got lucky and found at least one right away since I started near the end. Perhaps I'll listen to the whole thing later. But I'd really want the hear about skyscrapers and glass stuff on the comet..
Caravan To Midnight - Episode 122 Journey To Mars (aired Sep 4, 2014), just before 2h:19m :
Remember the Europeans are not stupid. They've got to know that the more of these images they put out, of this bizarre comet which is not a comet, that there are people that are not controlled are going to look at this and say: "Oh my God, those are *buildings*"!
Expat, the last update on the FB fan page was actually May 2012, not 2013.
Thanks, Trekker. Fixed -- and I added a para on time dilation.
01:23:40 "It's showing an object -- this so-called comet, 67P ... the object they picked is no more a comet than the USS Enterprise is a comet. It's an ancient vehicle, it's an ancient craft, it's an ancient space station about two miles across, which shows all kinds of ruins and eroded jagged metallic structures all over its surface."
Thanks for that Expat!
Another one at 1:26:55: "Oh my God, that stuff is not rocks and ice and boulders -- it's metal and skyscrapers and ancient ruins, eroded by millions of years of exposure to micro-meteorites..."
And one at 1:27:33 "..Europeans showing us stunning images of an ancient battle craft, disguised as a comet, which is leaking its atmosphere into space from whichever ruptures in the tanks ...of a 2-miles wide space station that is masquerading as a comet".
The glass ruins are mentioned after that in the context of the Chinese imaging, the CCD banding noise which RCH still claims is actual existing structure.
My point is then that it's not entirely accurate to say RCH is on record about glass apartment blocks on 67P/CG but instead saying there are "buildings", "skyscrapers", "all kinds of ruins" and "eroded jagged metallic structures".
It should be clear by now that I'm extremely nit-picky here.
Since I'm on a roll, it's also "ancient space station" in the audio so far instead of "abandoned space station". Perhaps because there's no way to tell something like Marvin the depressed robot would be still guarding the old parking lot of its restaurant....
There are contradictions here in the audio itself. Can something be a space station and a battle craft at the same time? Why disguising it as a comet if even from these pictures any fool can see that it's artificial? Or does he mean it's just hard to see now after millions of years? But why call that "masquerading" if it's so obvious and unintentional?
From Expat's fragment: "the object they picked is no more a comet than the USS Enterprise is a comet".
That made me wonder if he'd go for a potential similarity between the comet and the "secondary hull" of Startrek Enterprise, the part which remains after the saucer section separates. It's also called the "battle section". And no, I'm not a Trekkie, just looking up things at their Wiki... Perhaps it's not a good example picture but the idea is the engine and attachment fin but you have to reverse the shot.
Here comes in Richard's "good friend" Roddenberry with whom, according to himself, he spearheaded the successful campaign to call the first shuttle "Enterprise":
A few years after the demise of his famous TV series, Star Trek producer Gene Roddenberry was approached by a group calling themselves "Lab 9". They hired him to write a movie script based on their channeled communications from pan-dimensional entities known only as "The Nine." -- source TEM: "The Plan" Revealed in Symbolism?" from 1999
When considering all the tie-ins according to the interesting critical book on this called "The Stargate Conspiracy" --one might become interested in how RCH's thoughts on this could have developed: scifi as vehicle to communicate channeled information about the past of our solar system? And this might include significant shapes and forms, ranging from ancient pyramids and Sphinxes to spaceships and TV plots. A code through time he's assigned to unravel...
Just to provide a further glimpse into the mess he made.
Thanks Dee. I'm sticking with 'abandoned' since it's not within the quotes.
Looks like Dr Hoagland was right once again. Either NASA is hiding the Earth shattering images or the intelligent controllers of the object destroyed the intrusive probe.
I have absolutely no evidence to back it up, but I think RCH's appearance on Art Bell's short-lived Dark Matter radio show has something to do with his disappearance from Coast to Coast AM. Bell and Noory most definitely don't get along, and when Hoagland showed up twice on Bell's show in short succession in late 2013, the gaps between his Coast appearances very quickly became longer and longer.
Art's posted on his artbell.com website that his non-compete clause with Sirius ends in July 2015 and that he'll start his show back up then. I'll bet we'll see some new RCH via that avenue shortly after. Art's pretty much the only person who will still have him on a regular basis. One wonders if both of them like the way their conversations remind each other of their late 90s heyday.
uuuhhh excuse me :-)
Einstein is highly, very highly overrated...
the theory of general relativity by Einstein is nothing more then a niche theory..it works "pretty well" on "selective fields" ;-) of physics...in others it plainly sucks. regarding GPS satellites...well they are "tuned" before going into space. I don't see who that counts as any proof for the doodling of Herr 1Stein. And gravity influencing time...well I think Einstein didn't really bother to think that one through :-) clocks running slower towards gravity and faster away from gravity. Really...that one is really a joke because the the other way around is also true...clocks towards gravity run faster towards gravity in relation to clocks away from gravity.
there is really no reason for Heil Einstein in physics
I see that once again Mike Bara is using Wikipedia as a reference and citing published academic papers.
Both of which he condemns as corrupted. Take your pick Bara. You cannot say one moment academia is full of blithering idiots and there are no such things as the laws of physics, and that Wikipedia is edited by NASA to cover up HD physics and faces on Mars and is therefore unreliable. Then he next moment start using that which you condemn so loudly.
Jourget: There's some well-informed speculation about RCH's disappearance from C2C on this Coastgab page.
Thanks for that. I too am pretty doubtful that the episode of Coast that RCH supposedly won hosting duties on will ever happen. Didn't stop him from bringing it up the last couple times he was on, though.
The reason why Dr Hoagland is no longer on Coast, is because Theadora Minsk pointed out to George Noory via facebutt how Hoagy chumped him first time out of the box promoting Project Prometheus, then latter refused to discuss the X-37B. Furthermore, the ESA is controlled by the same Fascist NAZIS as is NASA, but NASA probably obliterated Philae anyway, just for kicks.
Novvak: You do realize that nothing NASA-owned was anywhere within 50,000,000 km, right?
The US Black Spacecraft Fleet could be there in an instant, but could just as easily blast it from anywhere, with Torsion weapons, you silly goose.
Just for the sake of a control sample, ExPert, would you mind please referencing one of your original research papers which documents the successful outcome of proving one of your original theories? You can redact the attribution if you wish.
Novvak: I'm not a scientist and I don't publish research papers. Neither are/do Hoagland & Bara. Feel free to browse this blog at will to see examples of my analysis.
Well, you are certainly a very bright fellow, but do three wrongs somehow make a right?
"...the theory of general relativity by Einstein is nothing more then a niche theory"
If you think the General Theory of Relativity is a niche theory, I'd hate to see what you have to say about Newtonian mechanics.
"..it works "pretty well" on "selective fields" ;-) of physics...in others it plainly sucks."
It works within our ability to measure on any regime that we can measure. The theory only breaks down when quantum effects become a factor on small mass scales and within the event horizon of a black hole. It may not be complete or qualitatively accurate, but quantitatively it's the most complete theory or gravity we have.
"regarding GPS satellites...well they are "tuned" before going into space. I don't see who that counts as any proof for the doodling of Herr 1Stein."
They are tuned according to Einstein's General and Special theories of relativity to achieve an accuracy of 20 to 30 nanoseconds with respect to the surface of the Earth, compensating for an average 38 microsecond time dilation per day (as predicted). GPS receivers make additional relativity calculations on an ad-hock basis to further refine the signal based on the user's position. If position measurements were based solely on the time difference between the satellite and receiver clocks without relativity adjustments, GPS would drift from its current 2.4 meter accuracy by about 10 km per day. Triangulation calculations and regular synching with land based clocks would probably compensate for most of this but it is still a demonstration of the reliability of general and special relativity.
"And gravity influencing time...well I think Einstein didn't really bother to think that one through :-) clocks running slower towards gravity and faster away from gravity. Really...that one is really a joke because the the other way around is also true...clocks towards gravity run faster towards gravity in relation to clocks away from gravity."
Two observers moving at constant high speeds with respect to each other will each see each other's clock slow down, but a stationary clock in a gravitational field will always run slower than one away from the field. I would like to know of any observation that disputes this.
Why do you think Philae was destroyed? It fulfilled its operational requirements as stated before the mission began, having a main battery life of about 2 1/2 days. You can see graphs on the ESA site of the battery voltage running down. It functioned nominally and more-or-less fulfilled its primary mission as stated.
The only problems were its anchoring harpoons didn't fire and the surface was harder than expected, causing it to bounce into a shaded cavern. There are images of its bounce, also on the ESA site. The solar panels therefore did not receive enough light for full recharge once the main battery drained.
How does any of this equate to a third party destroying the lander?
Philae is solar powered.
All facetiousness aside, The ESA may have cut public access to the transmitted data, but The ESA and NASA are controlled by the same Fascist NAZIS that control NASA.
They are the majority shareholders of the corporations which are the majority shareholders of the Federal Reserve, and the European Central Bank.
How did the Vatican, a foreign country, manage to build the LUCIFER telescope and observatory at Mount Graham in Arizona, without the required environmental impact study, and public debate, in defiance of public protests and in violation of Native American's territorial jurisdiction?
The Illuminati was founded by the Jesuits and the Vatican is now run by the Catholic Church's first Jesuit Pope.
Richard C. Hoagland reveals Comet 67P is an ancient spacecraft
(Tom Anderson Show: 11-7-14)
Amid all the highly controversial events surrounding Hale-Bopp's initial March apparition (closest approach to Earth), none caused so much furor as the contention, by some, that riding along with the comet was some kind of companion, or--
The "Heaven's gate" tragedy -- with its intimately connected and discredited "UFO associations" -- was ultimately the overriding factor in dismissing all such allegations out of hand. This was in addition to the simple fact that these initial observational claims of "unnatural objects ... moving in orbit with the comet," were eventually found to be based on
a) merely mistaken amateur observations of background stars, seen briefly in optical proximity to Hale-Bopp, and
b) publication of deliberate photographic hoaxes.
--Richard C Hoagland
Novvak: I believe your understanding of how NASA is funded and administered is very, very shaky.
I'd already noticed that Tom Anderson Show, and I've slipped in an update.
Two posts from Novvak rejected as irrelevant (NWO hysteria, nothing to do with comets or theoretical physics)
Sorry -- I don't reject much but that went OTT.
I'm surprised no one took the time to point out to the good Captain that Richard Hoagland doesn't have a Ph.D. of any kind. Referring to Hoagland as "Dr. Hoagland" is just as absurd as calling Bara an "Engineer." The flying monkeys are strong on that one.
-Venusian Rastafarian Jesus.
As a colleague of Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, Richard C Hoagland received a doctorate in nuclear physics from the University of California at Berkeley. Since his dissertation and practicum were Top Secret, his degree was conveyed in the same manor at the CIA awards the Blue Heart.
Our students can fail the IB diploma if they use Wikipidea as references, this is standard practice when writing papers, essays etc. How can Bara call himself a physicist?. It would also be interesting to put Bara's or hoaglands writings through turnitin.com......or better still turnip it in.com
To be fair, Bara doesn't call himself a physicist. He writes that most physicists are idiots.
I'm not familiar with turnitin, but if it's a plagiarism checker it would find plenty.
" I would like to know of any observation that disputes this."
Well :-) If you bring 'gravitime" or gravitational clocks like a sand clock, a pendulum clock or one of all the other nie clocks that fit the bill.....and you bring them in a zero G or near zero G environment....guess what happens.....time stops or nearly stops
there you go...not in line with Herr 1Stein's postulation on the matter [pun intented :-]
@GFP2216 regarding your spoof on GPS etc
Well...it is often quoted that our praised GPS system is by far the best proof of Einsteins equations of relativity. Actually this is poppycock. The GPS system does not use the field equations of Herr 1Stein at all. The system does not rely on them at all. The paper by the US Naval Observatory on the subject opens with the rather interesting phrase “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”
And a further analysis gives you the following
The Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.
Mind you...this is from a study by the US Naval Observatory
Wackopedia is never a reliable source :-)
"As a colleague of Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, Richard C Hoagland received a doctorate in nuclear physics ..."
I just realized the Captain is playing for laughs. You are a comedic genius, I salute you with a genuine space cadet salute. Extra points for staying in character.
I see Mikey boy is blogging again about new planets. Or to be precise. Trying to flog one of his books.
Richard C Hoagland really did attend UC Berkeley. I was discussing with him, the nuclear reactor that the university has on site, and he elaborated about it to me.
I suspect there are many Andy Kaufman-like characters that use the "alternative UFO conspiracy" subculture to hone their comedic chops. Certainly, anyone who is trying to sell Hoagland as a nuclear physicist is reaching for a Kaufman-like leg pull. Either that or they are huffing Ether ...or should be.
-Venusian Rastafarian Jesus
Hoagland never told me that he had graduated, and I didn't ask, but he did say he had studied there. He was obviously, quite familiar with the facilities of UC Berkeley, as am I.
I'm not willing to allow this comedy routine to go on much longer.
While I will maintain that the GPS satellite clocks run approximately 38 ms slower due to time dilation, I began to question the claims that this would cause the system to fail. That is why I tried to qualify it in my post. I found a couple technical papers discussing the issue but haven't yet felt like going through them.
It looks like I fell for your satire. Nice work walking the fine line between comedy and Hoaglandite.
Adrian, hello again. You wrote: "Mind you...this is from a study by the US Naval Observatory"
Tom Van Flandern in that paper only admits there that demonstrated effects predicted by Special Relativity do match his own preferred Lorentzian relativity theory:
"SR’s time dilation is equivalent to LR’s clock slowing; SR’s space contraction is equivalent to LR’s meter-stick shrinkage; and SR’s change in the momentum of moving bodies is equivalent to LR’s."
In other words your quoted paper disagrees with your own words that "the GPS system does not use the field equations of Herr 1Stein at all". GPS actually does even for van Flandern, only he obviously thinks the LR theory should be used instead. Fair enough but LR supporters should then invent some more experiments to falsify LR and go ahead. For the time being SR has a long, long list of such experiments in the bag and only a few very minor issues remain indicating there could always be a better theory waiting in the wings, but that's not the discussion here: GPS does not falsify or definitively prove Special Relativity but simply lives up to the many SR based predictions.
On a more general note, Einstein explained that the aether theory [as vehicle for electro-magnetic waves] did not matter anymore in Relativity theory - as it would be motionless. In his own words: " the hypothesis of Aether in itself is not in conflict with the Special Theory of Relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the Aether". In science one often goes with simplicity, in this case: if it works with SR, why introduce LR at all? To make which point precisely? Did van Flandern become at some point a contrarian: to exist by disagreeing with leading theory out of some principle? Sometimes it appears as such. He has retracted major stuff before, to his credit.
Here's an old article describing RCH's participation in the Miami Circle hoopla just before his 1999 heart attack:
That says he dropped out of the University of Connecticut, and doesn't mention Berkeley in any way.
I worked with Bob Carr, the Miami-Dade archaeologist quoted in the article, on the Brickell Point site immediately south of the Miami Circle in 2005-06, and he's got his own little foibles. But even he says Hoagland's out to lunch!
Interesting in that it documents his first contact with Falkov.
Hoagland's role in the UFO Control System is to get US to toss the baby Jesus out with the baptismal water.
Jacques Vallee Discusses UFO Control System
Update: Noory announced last night that RCH is not on the naughty chair and will be back on C2C soon.
Many of Einsteins gedanken experiments fail in practical terms simply because they are not grounded in physical reality but only in one man's imagination which is still clouding physics up to this very day.
the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that Herr 1Stein's Relativity was used to design GPS or that it is based thereupon.
That burden necessarily includes describing
??who, when, where, how, and why.??
It didn't happen. And if it did, the person[s] who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.
and if I'm not mistaken this is exactly what "the tweaking of clocks" is all about before satellites are hauled into space
Adrian, you wrote: "Many of Einsteins gedanken experiments fail in practical terms simply because they are not grounded in physical reality "
What about the Hafele Keating experiment? Seems practical and grounded in reality enough to me. Even better it was answering Einstein's own proposal in a 1905 paper on special relativity.
Now one could say that with "Lorentzian Relativity" it is not possible to really distinguish itself from Special Relativity by experiment, that it justs proposes changes in the speed of light instead of time. But it does introduce an undetectable variable, the absolute, unmoving "aether". Science however prefers to work not that way unless proper reasons are given to introduce such thing.
Since you, Adrian introduced van Flandern's work on the Lorentzian variant as some argument to the contrary, it is also you who have to deal with the burden of describing "??who, when, where, how, and why.??". And not shift that burden to the others while sticking with an undetectable entity instead (ie "prove my God does NOT exist" -- science replies: "bad framing").
Update: Noory announced last night that RCH is not on the naughty chair and will be back on C2C soon.
Was that on the forum?
Just an off-the-cuff comment during "Open Lines." He said they'd had plenty of e-mail asking about the long absence, and that "he has some new material for us."
**sigh** Oh well, it'll make good blog material, no doubt.
excuse me...:-) the HK experiment :-) you got to be kidding right ?? right ??
H&K's data was manipulated to produce the appearance of success but the reality was that the tests produced no measurable affect of velocity and time dilation.
To further add to the analysis of the actual raw data (not the data as published) Hefele himself wrote in the report to the US Navy that the data was troubleing and did not support the conclusion of time dilation. That information is available via the Freedom of Informtion Act.
Therefore I uphold my original post on the matter. the GR and SR postulated by Herr 1Stein is simply are simply niche theories and they are really overrated and do not deserve all the Heil and praise which they got from the get go.
Furthermore I personally find it cognitive dissonant to the utmost degree and that this bugger Einstein really does not deserve [or earned] the pedestal upon he was placed. besides the invalidity of his back on the envelope doodling's, everybody who does a little research knows the fraudulent character and nature of his persona.
"History" for whatever dubious reason decided that Herr 1Stein is and shall remain the be and end all of physics. I believe that sooner or later when the peer review syndicate looses its power and stops ruining peoples lives and career's, we will all come to grips with this Frankenstein abomination and freakshow called relativism.
It is almost criminal that this wacko theory of relativity continues to be taught as a fundamental pillar of modern physics. Einstein was not the genius we're led to believe, and his relativity theory is rigged and plain wrong. Many scientists know this, but dare not say anything except for a few outstanding scientist's. Those that speak out are ignored or called crackpot or get their careers demolished. The truth is relativity is fundamentally flawed - space and time are not joined; objects do not contract in length; the measured constant speed of light result is rigged by synchronizing clocks Einstein's way; the theory is riddled with paradoxes, and defies commonsense logic.
Agreed, Einstein may have scored a few point here and there, that does not make him the genius of the century. the fame of his twin paradox brother Frankenstein is also known by many :-) but at the core he remains what he really is...an abomination
@Dee and just in general just to keep the noodle frying :-)
the following is said by Herr 1Stein
"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist"
a view also expressed in 900 AD by the Arabic physicist Ikhwan al-Sufa, "Space is a form abstracted from matter and exists only in consciousness".
what business has consciousness, modes, concept's, idea's, philosophies etc with physics???
Physic's is about explaining the physical world we live in hence the word physic's. Scientist's may cook up and stir the pot of so called physic's by claiming to know it all but if the ingredients are non physical like dark energy, dark matter, space and time Gauge bosons etc then we must realize we are dealing with concept's and philisophies and not physic's.
Crap like elementary particles carrying the force of interaction is like explaining how a bird flies...Well, he carries his flight like a fish carries his swim as a frog carries his jump.
Concepts like time for example are nothing more then that, a concept, an idea and it is not of a physical nature. Clocks do not measure time, they measure themselves and/or measuring their reference clock. As a concept time does not exist in reality, it is an observational construct of our brain.
So if 1Stein quips that "Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist"
surely it will and must apply to his theories that made him very unjustly famous.
We doe not exist in the conditions postulated by 1Stein as space and time.
@Dee and in general for the frying of the noodle :-) and because it is such an interesting subject :-)
when it comes to physic's [ which has the job of explaining and proving the why's and how's of our physical world ] I, as a mechanical engineer, always would like to see the full and complete equations. If there is a gap the picture is not complete and therefore not 100% valid in terms of physic's.
Having said that and every time in physic's when I see for example
- a visual representation in order to "explain" our expanding universe by means of a guy inflating a dotted balloon....I instantly want to know where I can find this guy and his inflating in the equation in terms of physic's??? So far...this dude and his lung capacity are nowhere to be found in the equation.
- when I see a visual representation in order to "explain" our universe coming out of a so called big bang I instantly want to know where I can find "the black stuff" that "seems" to surround our universe in the equation in terms of physic's . Same goes for the "black stuff" in between universes that is missing in the equation when it comes to a visual representation of multiverses. So far just goofy ideas and no real explanations.
- when I see a visual representation in order to "explain" how one particle is "influencing" another particle I instantly want to know where I can find that part in the equation that explains in terms of physic's what and how that 99,999% of space is doing this and why. Because so far there is no apparent reason why so much "nothingness" is causing so much "interaction". Plenty of goofy thoughts can be found but not one explanation in terms of physic's.
- when I see a visual representation in order to "explain" how mitosis works I instantly want to know where I can find "the force" in the equation in terms of physic's that makes the cell's nucleus separate into two identical sets of chromosomes. So far...as in the afore mentioned..it remains a mystery and a gaping gap remains in the equation.
- - when I see a visual representation in order to "explain" why planets neatly keep on revolving around the sun because of the space time curvature...I immediately want to know where I can find the part concerning "the force" in the equation that explains why these planets do not eventually fall into the sun as a result of this curvature. So far planets and or moons mysteriously keep their distance. Some of them even do the opposite and slowly move away from the center mass.
- etc etc
mind you when I say ....equation in terms of physic's... I mean just that. An explanation in terms of physic's and not a goofy idea, concept or philosophy because that is another ball game and department with no relevance to physic's.
Adrian: "H&K's data was manipulated to produce the appearance of success..."
Sorry Adrian, the discussion stops right there for me. Disagreement taking place at the scientific level is not the same as "manipulation". You've got zero proof for that charge!
Anyway, you are either manipulative or clueless when saying "the tests produced no measurable affect of velocity and time dilation". This is why. Let me repeat van Flandern (who you first quoted as evidence): SR’s time dilation is equivalent to LR’s clock slowing. So there's definitely clock slowing/speeding in his view, period. Did you understand the paper of VF and what he attempted to challenge there?
If you actually knew anything about LR, you'd not dispute most of the experiments as they satisfy SR as well as LR. The actual reason that there's still disagreement with a few on the theory (and not the experiments) seem to escape you, I'm sorry to say. And there ends the grounds for our discussion and normally the kicking up of more dust would start. So I'm out!
Thank you and I agree since you mounted your semantic belligerent high horse talking down again like in the previous discussion on a different topic. I wonder why that is...
Anyway, since you "announced" to end the discussion I see no reason why I should bother....
in addition to my earlier comments
The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results. The real data gives no reason to proof the conclusions of Hafele & Keating
If one wants to believe in the clock readings ‘observed’ by HK, that would still not prove special relativity despite the swearing, kicking and screaming by dee and conservative physicists. Imagine that the stationary clock at the observatory ticked 100sec while the clock in the east bound flight ticked 90sec and the clock in the west bound flight ticked 110sec (as a simplified example). Though these readings "might appear" to be consistent with the predictions of special relativity from the perspective of the centre of earth observer, the same is not the case from the perspective other observers. For example from the perspective of the observer on the earth, both flights were moving at equal velocity and hence both must have experienced time dilation by the same factor and should have read the same time. But this was surely not the case at all.
From the perspective of an observer in the east bound flight, it was actually the west bound flight which was travelling at a very high velocity. So according to him, the west bound flight should have experienced the maximum time dilation and ticked the slowest if SR were to be true. Also the observatory clock should have experienced some amount of time dilation and hence ticked slower than his ‘stationary’ clock. Similarly the clock readings would go against the predictions of SR when viewed from the perspective of the west bound flight.
Implications...anyone? The readings of the clocks (on the premise that the data was not ‘manipulated’ by the ‘phychocists’ having a very scientific reason not to publish the original data ) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. (Same is the case with GPS clocks). And when it comes to looking...well things do not always look the same :-) from a different angle :-)
The only conclusion a sane mind can draw from the twin flight experiment is that the functioning of atomic clocks get affected by motion and gravity. It also suggest that motion is not relative, in other words there seems to be an absolute reference frame. But why atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of SR? for that we firstly have to be absolutely sure the data is not in anyway "influenced". For many a man the presented data by lets say the IPCC for example is impeccable, absolute proof and above and beyond suspicion.....when in reality it is just a good old fashioned economic and political bamboozle.
Back to the topic why it seems to proof the doodling of Herr 1Stein....surely it is not because of time dilation effect. If it was time that dilates then all processes should get slowed down by the same factor in a given scenario. And that should include the physical process underlying the pendulum and other gravitational clocks as I mentioned earlier somewhere. Alas...this is not the case
Time = Gravity
I've been kind of refraining from commenting because I don't care to confront people on issues, but I am going to take issue with a couple of things.
First of all, after you accused me of ripping my information from Wikipedia (which I didn't though I used it as one resource), I was disappointed to see your first rebuttal was almost entirely taken word for word from almost every conspiracy site on the subject -- the quoted part and the unquoted part. I was disappointed because I thought you were implicating that you had read and understood the paper.
I admitted I don't know enough about the GPS system to know whether redundancies could make up for time dilation errors -- but that's all your post really showed, that redundancies could potentially compensate for time differences. I don't see how it does anything to refute Einstein's theories. Further as one actual physics site states, a place where real physicists gather along with their detractors, the quoted van Flandern paper is "a paper remarkable chiefly for the extraordinary number of obvious errors it contained"
I would also like to note that the GPS system isn't touted as the best example of general relativity. It is used as an example because of its familiarity to the general public unlike, say, ranging by bouncing lasers off of lunar reflectors.
I was further a little disturbed that your last post, with the exception of a few ad-libs, comes in its entirety from the website of a surgeon-turned-homeopathic doctor. A Homeopathic doctor giving out his wisdom on relativity! You said you want to see equations but you chose a qualitative description from someone who gives away that he does not understand the equations, the concept of an inertial reference frame, or most importantly the fact that Hafele and Keating's planes were flying in circumnavigation circles and not straight lines.
There have been many more accurate experiments since Hafele and Keating replicating their results. Here's a whole webpage of special relativity experiments which has a few examples:
And, not to confuse special relativity with general relativity.. if you want the equations for general relativity I found a nice concise primer written by an undergaduate:
The math appears to be within the abilities of a mechanical engineer. I plan to study it myself.
I have thoughts on your other comments but I think this is enough for now.
So if I read your equation correctly which you stated as
time = gravity
then you surely agree based on your statement that upon entering a zero gravity environment time will stop, in other words...time is also zero. Right?
My statements concerning different flaws in GR, SR and the lot and examples based on arguments brought forth as "sound proof" circulating the internet, educational systems and floating around within the conservative scientific community stand. There's no conspiracy involved although you might think it is a nice debunking tool. Really it is not and it only makes me and others yawn if people jump on this bandwagon in order to circumvent the arguments raised and not answering them. Although I am fully aware, cognizant and educated in matters of SR and GR it is of no importance actually and really. the arguments put forth are.
In some parts of the world it is considered rude and arrogant if people think they need to "educate" others by sending references to sites or books. Again, it is a lame trick often used to draw away attention. So I can only advise to read more carefully and stay on the the subject instead of using lame tricks in order not to discuss the topic. So lets start again if you like and start with just one argument at the time then just to keep it simple.
"Gravitational clocks refute 1Stein's postulation because they run slower the further they are away from a gravitational field. according to eins zwei dreistein they should run faster which is wrong, so he was wrong. Also the opposite is true....to a certain degree...gravitational clocks from zero gravity into a gravitational field start to run faster. Again opposite to 1Steins doodling's on the matter. So he is wrong on that one too. I said...to a certain degree...because gravitational clocks from zero gravity - where time obviously does not exist because there is no gravity to "create time" - into a gravitational field will "create time" because they start running under the influence of gravity but they may start running slower again beyond a certain threshold. If the mass of an object and therefore gravity is strong enough time will slow down again or stop altogether"
So...Einstein's doodling's cannot be wrong and right at the same time. It is either right, wrong or simply a niche theory - which was my original argument in the first place - which seems to work only in certain areas of physics and therefore highly overrated and certainly not the be and end all of physics.
So...GFP2216...the stage is yours now and I hope you can find it within yourself to stay on the topic and argument. I really am not into semantic if's but's and maybe's when it is not topic or argument related.
Adrian: "I wonder why that is..."
It's because you seem to get your information exclusively from rather disputable sources, which are all way, way less credible and verifiable than those ever shaky "mainstream" publications with all their uncertainties and correctable failures.
Please read more about Hafele–Keating, how it was repeated, again and again, with more and more modern equipment and the results getting closer and closer to the prediction. The most original repeat was done in 1996 by UK's National Measurement Institute , who are a leading authority in measuring stuff. The improved readings were clearly caused by the increasingly accurate equipment, as theorized after the original experiment soft-failed.
And I'll not add to the mud slinging but to say you need to wake up, Adrian! There's no shame in admitting you've been had by the exciting stuff you've been reading. Happens to the best of us.
Well..."....with more and more modern equipment and the results getting closer and closer to the prediction."
Such a statement says it all does it not....from zero results [deliberately not published but surfaced none the less] to closer and closer results to a prediction...Interesting scientific set of rules. But then again your reasoning surely is somewhere in the spirit of...."that's the way things are done and then we learn" right? Again ignoring some facts and analysis of the data to the contrary which leads to a real and open scientific debate. But then again if the mindset is that 1Stein must be right you can call everybody who is not playing ball a crackpot, uneducated and what have you. There is a word for such behavior, surely you know that as an intelligent person.
I am the last person to ignore that the postulations of Herr 1Stein seem to work in certain areas in physics and that it does not work in a lot of others. That is the reason why I called it a nice theory in the first place :-)
Ignoring that is simply unscientific no matter how hard people start kicking and screaming the moment they realize that the very foundation of their pet theory is crumbling beneath their feet.
you may think of yourselves as a [self]appointed high commissioner of the truth but you really start to sound like a frustrated wikipedia moderator.
Scientific rules are simply not there for the bending if data tells tells a different story.
concerning the HK experiment[s] the flaw mostly lies within "perspective and location and interpretation" as I pointed out earlier not to mention the obfuscation of their original data.
So be scientific and explain the following since you keep on going about this HK experiment that proofs it all in your opinion.
You know that clocks have the awkward tendency to gain or lose time which is called "drift" [although in reality time in itself does not "drift" but gives us that impression based on the inaccuracy of the clocks mechanism itself] if this so called drift occurs in a steady rate, we can simply do some adding or subtractions. Alas this "luck" of steady rate drift was nowhere to be found in the so unjustly praised HK experiments. This drifting was enormously irregular for all of the clocks.
???is that not "strange" given the fact that they used such refined and accurate clocks??? for all intents and purposes they where not cheap and of the shelve clocks right??? So why do such costly highly accurate clocks behave in a cheap way :-) ???
Going by the data the total range of this drifting was no where near the 59 nanoseconds that was expected to be measured. It was off by a factor of almost 12.
Not to mention the highly variable "drifting" of the clocks involved and the "drifting" of these individual clocks during and throughout the experiments.
And what was the reason again which makes it necessary for the "experimentors" to shield ceasium clocks? Indeed from magnetic effects. So if one hauls ceasium clocks through a different medium then that of the base clocks....you already have a problem right there. Because the effect of all kind of particles in the earths atmosphere is still unknown and unaccounted for and nowhere explained in this HK experiment.
This kind of bamboozle is really an embarrassment to and for science...but obviously science has long lost it rigor and motivation being scientific.
Adrian, regarding the Hafele–Keating experiment you wrote: "zero results [deliberately not published but surfaced none the less]".
Lets just take one actual reference, a proponent who argues in a similar way: Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? by the late Dr. Al Kelly, Ph.D in Civil Engineering and author of the book "Challenging Modern Physics". Are you okay with this reference as representing your POV?
Apart from simply ignoring my argument that this test was later repeated succesfully, e.g by the National Measurement Institute in 2010 using way better equipment and publishing the actual results which were in line with expectations, there's also some error in the critique from Kelly. Which I'll try to show instead of just hinting at.
Here is the test result in table form, with the original and modified numbers, from Kelly's book. I'll assume this is accurate.
At first glance it seems rather weird, those obvious differences. But when one someone actually reads the paper, e.g. "Performance and results of portable clocks in aircraft" by J.C. Hafale, published by the U.S. Naval Observatory in 1971, another picture emerges. There one can read that one clock is not an accurate measurement at all, not with the state of technology at the time! The financial compromise was to use four instead of at least 15 used to track mean time at USNO! Fluctuations in atomic clocks are deemed random and cancel each other out by averaging many different clocks. So you have to understand the "clock" at USNO is not an actual single clock at all and the clocks on the plane cannot be simply treated as four separate clocks with separate readings. The science of those clocks just doesn't work that way!
Now comes the difference between practical engineering experience with atomic clock drift versus the remote criticisms of Kelly: the drift of a single clock can be calculated as a Gaussian distribution and as such taken into account. Added to that all kinds of deviations in flight, course and altitude which all causes the raw clock measurement to be meaningless without correcting for all that first.
To insist on using the raw measurement instead is not possible considering the noise included within the individual signal. But the discussion really boils down to the question if that noise can be canceled out by calculation using statistical methods: and that is what they do in the labs as well, it is not new to this experiment. While one can dispute the correctness of that "filter", the actual proof will always lie with future repeats using better clocks and more accurate flight paths, to cancel out potential errors within the experimentation itself, over time.
Which I've already showed has been done with rather telling results. So yes the original Hafele–Keating was "shaky" and quite improvising as an experiment, that's correct. They would have needed dozens of clocks on board for more significant results at the time, although the individual numbers might still look weird. But there were good reasons to publish the corrected results and in no way it was implied that this was the final evidence. The future would tell -- and it appears it did.
Hope this helps, Adrian!
I thought you might have something to do with this!
This is hilarious!....needs updating though!
Nope, not me.
to a certain degree I agree with you and this was never an issue for me however
- My first point is and was that if people or educational systems etc etc are stating that the HK experiment is proof of 1Steins correctness in regard to his postulations is simply unscientific for various reasons and borders on manipulation if not told the whole story. We can all have different opinions, views and ideas but when it comes to science and physics....elimination of data or smoothing out of data or mothballing uncomfortable results is not a scientific argument, it is simply fraude and a bamboozle
- My second point concerning the HK experiment done 25 years later as an anniversary scoop...is that there is a lot of "tweaking" going all as well which is rather curious
So if one tweaks towards a certain concept or idea in order to proof it one cannot simply do without the full picture taking into account the full spectrum of variables. And that means that the experiment which you are referring to is highly controversial in itself because because of that.
The experiment was done in order to test if velocity could account for time dilation. and right there the tweaking starts because only the height, speed and estimated position were observed.
the data on the aircrafts acceleration and the forces of acceleration when and if the aircraft experienced any turbulence during the flight or other alterations where simply not recorded in the experiments.
Furthermore this experiment has never been looked at from the point of view of acceleration only. There is no account for turbulence during the flight or variations in the acceleration during take-off and landings etc etc and we could make the list even longer with all kinds of topics which where not taken into account
Surely the anniversary experiment stands a better chance in court then the original bamboozle done by HK but there are a lot of bugs as I pointed out.
So as a point of argument lets say there comes a time [pun intended] when we have a perfect experiment which includes all possible interfering variables....and it would turn out proving the doodlings of Herr 1Stein in that regard...I have no problem with that...my world and your world does not change because of that....but until then...
the sum of Herr 1Stein doodlings can only be appreciated in reality and scientifically as a nice theory which seem to work only in certain corners of physics. And as I pointed out earlier...there is no real reason in terms of physics to Heil and praise Herr 1Stein as the be and end all of physics.
and I also said somewhere that time is actually a concept, an idea, an event, an incoherent and abstract representation of movement, a philosophical statement and no real physical object which can be explained..like space and that physics is all about explaining...well physical things. So...
since we are still on the subject of clocks, albeit terrifying accurate caesium clocks, please give a specific definition of time then if you please?
Specifying time as "time or duration of an event" or similar accounts to that effect will not to because it still says nothing about time or notion thereof.
and as long as we do not have a specific definition and explanation of time....there will always be the other thing which it supposed to represent.
So if we look at this with no bias whatsoever and the notion that we have no specific definition of time is remains actually quite ludicrous to say that clocks drift in time, lose and or gain time.
concerning the terrifying accurate caesium clocks it would be better to state that the speed of oscillations of caesium atoms increase or decrease.
So if we want to un-bamboozle current physics regarding the HK experiment etc it should be stated as follows
the oscillation speed of caesium atoms are "relative"
lacking a specific definition of time
Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time.
Not true, Novvak. Rotation does not create gravity. MASS creates gravity.
How much does mass weigh in zero gravity?
What experiment utilizing the Scientific Method has ever physically weighed mass away from a rotating body?
>>How much does mass weigh in zero gravity?<<
>>What experiment utilizing the Scientific Method has ever physically weighed mass away from a rotating body? <<
Skylab experiment M172, body mass measurement.
...although I suppose you might argue that "weighed" is not strictly correct in the Skylab case. "Measured" or "calculated" would be better. An astronaut's body has no WEIGHT, by definition since he's weightless. However, it still has MASS, and that is what was measured.
If mass creates Gravity then how can the Astronaut be weightless?
If you take the Astronaut out for a Spacewalk and swing him around by his tether, then the rotation of his mass only then will create Gravity.
Consider how the Spaceship in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey created Gravity.
"Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time."
please then explain how on earth or to put it more correctly how on Uranus this works because this planet has an obliquity of 97,86 degrees ? In a way perpendicular to the orbital plane of our solar system ?
I would really like to know your answer to that one
>>If mass creates Gravity then how can the Astronaut be weightless? <<
Oh dear. I never really saw myself as an 8th grade science teacher, but wtf....
The astronaut is weightless because it's gravity that is keeping him in orbit. The situation is no different from the weightlessness he would experience while falling from a great height (minus the effects of air rushing past him). Mike Bara has a similarly primitive idea of what gravity is. I tried to explain to him that zero gravity is not simply a consequence of being at orbital altitude (120 km plus) -- you have to have forward motion as well. If you built a spiral staircase reaching up to that altitude, and stood at the top, you would not be weightless. In fact, a man of Mike Bara size would weigh some 10 lb less than on the surface, by virtue of being that much further from the center of the planet.
Please note again that in all cases gravitation does not change a body's MASS. A Skylab astronaut has whatever mass he has, measured in the M172 rocking chair. Mike Bara standing 120km above the Earth still has a MASS of 250lb although his WEIGHT is reduced by the altitude.
Would the astronaut not be weightless out between solar systems, while traveling in a linear direction?
There actually was an experiment on Skylab, where salt crystals were attracted to each other by the force of Gravity created by their own mass.
Okay, here's one for you. How come you can jump up in the air from the rear deck of a fast, forward moving yacht, and not land in the Ocean, yet you can float around in the air, weightless, in a nose diving 707, and how would that work on Uranus?
Novvak: >>Would the astronaut not be weightless out between solar systems, while traveling in a linear direction?<<
He would be weightless, since he is not in any gravity field. Although mathematically you could derive a figure for the influence of the nearest star, it would be infinitesimal and in any case the whole spacecraft would be falling towards it by that infinitesimal amount.
In an idle moment I ran through the calculation of Mike Bara's weight loss as he's standing on top of a very tall spiral staircase.
I did it in kilograms and metres, because the pound/foot system adds confusion. Since the word "pound" is used for mass as well as force it can get hard to tell which we're talking about.
In the metric system, mass is measured in kilograms while force is measured in newtons.
Since I can't use superscripts in this comment box, I'm using the convention of ^ meaning "to the power of".
Mass of Mike: 113 kg (250lb)
Mass of planet: 5.97 × 10^24 kg
Radius of planet: 6.371 × 10^6 m
Altitude of Mike: 120,000 m = 0.12 × 10^6 m
So distance of Mike from center of Earth: 6.49 × 10^6 m
Gravitational constant G: 6.67 × 10^-11
Acceleration due to gravity g: 9.81 m s^-2
F = G m1m2/d^2
F is the force attracting two massive bodies
m1,m2 are the masses of the two bodies
d is the distance between the centers
Mike weighs 113 kg on the surface of the planet
That means the force pulling him down is 113 × g, or 1108 newtons
at 120km altitude, the force pulling him down is given by
6.67 × 10^-11 × 113 × 5.97 × 10^24
6.49^2 × 10^12
top is 4500 × 10^13
bottom is 42.1 × 10^12
result is 1070 newtons
1070 divide by g = 109
113 - 109 = 4
so Mike's weight is 4kg or 8.8lb less than at surface
So then you are saying that one can travel in a linear direction in Outer Space?
Novvak: I think I'd call it quasi-linear. But I beg you to stop this tutoring stuff, it's not what the blog is for.
The point is that Gravity curves Space which shortens distance thereby Relatively decreasing Time; therefore Gravity = Time.
The there is the fact that damn near everything in Outer Space rotates. A body in motion tends to remain in motion; nearly perpetually. That takes a lot of Energy, which cannot be destroyed, but can be converted.
The question is how?
@ Captain Novvak
expat said...".....But I beg you to stop this tutoring stuff, it's not what the blog is for."
I agree so why not stop horsing around and stop side-tracking and answer questions raised to arguments you brought forth. So....the following is still open...
"Zero Gravity is Relative. Rotation creates gravity. Rotating bodies curve Space like a bowling ball on a table cloth thereby reducing distance resulting in decrease of travel Time."
please then explain how on earth or to put it more correctly how on Uranus this works because this planet has an obliquity of 97,86 degrees ? In a way perpendicular to the orbital plane of our solar system ?
I would really like to know your answer to that one
The question cannot be answered because it arises from a false assumption.
Last comment by Novvak deleted. Wrong place, and it's merely a re-post from Hoagland's FB fan page. I won't allow it in the other thread either.
Post a Comment